report on the monitoring of the implementation of …file/hsr-year1-report.d… · web viewthis was...

Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

Prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Health

Submitted by the National Heart Foundation of Australia, April 2016

Reporting period: June 2014 to June 2015 (Year 1)

For enquiries about this report, please contact:

Front-of-Pack Labelling Secretariat Department of Health

GPO Box 9848, Canberra, ACT, 2601

Phone: 1800 099 658

Email: [email protected]

© 2016 National Heart Foundation of Australia, ABN 98 008 419 761

Suggested citation: National Heart Foundation of Australia. Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1. Commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Health. Melbourne, Australia: National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2016.

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. Enquiries concerning permissions should be directed to copyright@ heartfoundation.org.au

National Heart Foundation of Australia ii

Table of ContentsFigures and Tables....................................................................................................................i

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................vi

Project team...................................................................................................................................vi

Project staff.....................................................................................................................................vi

Funding...........................................................................................................................................vi

Abbreviations and acronyms..................................................................................................vii

Health Star Rating system graphics.......................................................................................viii

Year 1 of the Health Star Rating system at a glance................................................................ix

Key achievements...........................................................................................................................ix

For the future..................................................................................................................................ix

Executive summary..................................................................................................................x

AoE 1: Label implementation and consistency with the HSR system Style Guide...............................x

AoE 2: Consumer awareness and ability to use the HSR system correctly.........................................xi

AoE 3: Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR system graphic....................................................xi

Background and objectives....................................................................................................xii

Agreement to develop the HSR system...........................................................................................xii

What is the HSR system?................................................................................................................xii

Objective of the HSR system...........................................................................................................xii

Implementation of the HSR system................................................................................................xiii

Monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system: Areas of Enquiry....................................................xiii

Project objective...........................................................................................................................xiii

Program Logic Framework.....................................................................................................xiv

General methodology...........................................................................................................xvi

Food composition data and products displaying the HSR system graphic: Food TrackTM.................xvi

Customising FoodTrack™ for this project......................................................................................xvii

Chapter 1- Area of Enquiry 1 Label implementation and consistency with the Health Star Rating system Style Guide.....................................................................................................18

1.1. Chapter summary..............................................................................................................181.1.1. Uptake of the HSR system....................................................................................................................181.1.2. Comparison of uptake of the HSR system to the Daily Intake Guide (DIG).........................................191.1.3. Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR Style Guide.......................191.1.4. Assessment of the HSR displayed on pack using the HSRC.................................................................19

iii Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

1.2. Methodology.....................................................................................................................201.2.1. Uptake of the HSR system by manufacturers and retailers................................................................201.2.2. Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR system Style Guide...........211.2.3. Assessment of HSR displayed on pack against that determined by the HSRC....................................221.2.4. Data analysis.......................................................................................................................................23

1.3. Results...............................................................................................................................231.3.1. Uptake of the HSR system at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)..........................................................231.3.2 Results from Wave 1 of additional uptake monitoring (September 2015).........................................321.3.3 Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR Style Guide.......................33

1.3.4 Assessment of HSR displayed on pack against that determined by the HSRC at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015).........................................................................................................................41

Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry 2 Consumer awareness and ability to use the HSR system correctly..............................................................................................................................................42

2.1 Chapter summary..............................................................................................................422.1.1 Awareness of the HSR system..................................................................................................................422.1.2 Understanding what the HSR system represents.....................................................................................422.1.3 Use of the HSR system.............................................................................................................................422.1.4 Perceptions and attitudes towards the HSR system................................................................................43

2.2 Methodology............................................................................................................................432.2.1 Survey design and sample.......................................................................................................................432.2.2 Online panel partner................................................................................................................................442.2.3 Survey questionnaire...............................................................................................................................442.2.4 Sample characteristics.............................................................................................................................462.2.5 Data analysis............................................................................................................................................46

2.3 Results.....................................................................................................................................472.3.1 Section A: General supermarket shopping..............................................................................................472.3.2 Section B: Awareness of food logos.........................................................................................................502.3.3 Section C: Knowledge and understanding of the Health Star Rating system.............................................572.3.4 Section D. Purchasing behaviours............................................................................................................652.3.5 Section E. Advertising awareness...................................................................................................................732.3.6 Section F: Attitudes and perceptions about the HSR system...................................................................762.3.7 Section G: Health attitudes and behaviours................................................................................................78

Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry 3 Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR system graphic..........84

3.1 Chapter summary.....................................................................................................................843.1.1 Nutrient status of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015).......84

3.2 Methodology............................................................................................................................843.2.1 Data analysis............................................................................................................................................85

3.3 Results.....................................................................................................................................853.3.1 Nutrient status of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015).......85

National Heart Foundation of Australia iv

References.............................................................................................................................92

Appendix 1 - Wave 1 Uptake Report......................................................................................94

Appendix 2 - Compliance checklist.......................................................................................100

Appendix 3 - Foods that contribute to FVNL values, and examples for determining FVNL content from incomplete datasets.......................................................................................109

Appendix 4 - Consumer survey questionnaire for AoE 2........................................................111

v Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

Figures and TablesFIGURESFigure 1 Program Logic Framework for the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the HSR system...........................................................................................................................xv

Figure 1.1. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)..................................................................24

Figure 1.2. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)............................................27

Figure 1.3. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by major manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)...............................29

Figure 1.4. Comparison of the uptake of the HSR system to the uptake of the DIG, over time..............................................................................................................................................32

Figure 1.5. Proportion of products (%) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)...............................................................................33

Figure 1.6. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)............................................34

Figure 1.7. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)..................................................................35

Figure 1.8. Number of products (n) displaying Option 1, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)...............................................................................36

Figure 1.9. Proportion of products (%) displaying HSR Option 1, by optional nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)................................................................................................37

Figure 1.10. Number of products (n) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by HSR Category, by optional nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)...........................................37

Figure 1.11. Proportion of products (%) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)..............................................38

Figure A1. When buying food at the supermarket, what is the main thing that influences your choice between two similar products? (Sample: 2,036)......................................................47

Figure A2. Which supermarkets have you visited in the past month? (Sample: 2,036)..............48

Figure A3. When choosing a new food during grocery shopping, how often do you compare how healthy products are? (Sample: 2,036) ...............................................................48

Figure A4. On average, when at the supermarket, do you look at the nutrition information panel on…? (Sample: 2,036).......................................................................................................51

Figure B1. 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? (Sample: 2,036)...........................................................................................................................................51

Figure B2. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? (Sample: 2,036).........54

Figure B3. Prompted awareness of the HSR system over time (Sample: 2,036)........................54

Figure C1. When the HSR system graphic is on the packaging of food, what do you think it means? (Sample: 1,084)...........................................................................................................56

Figure C2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product determined? (Sample: 1,084)...........................................................................................................................................58

Figure C3. How would you use the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)............................................60

Figure C4. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084).......60

Figure C5. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084)......60

Figure D1. Why didn’t the HSR system influence your choice? (Sample: 180)...........................68

Figure D2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in the supermarket which had the HSR system graphic on them? (Sample: 507).....................................................71

Figure D3. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is important to have the HSR system graphic on them? (Sample: 1,084)...................................................................72

Figure E1. Where had you seen or heard about the HSR system? (Sample: 217).....................73

Figure E2. Which organisation or company did the advertising or promotion(s)? (Sample: 217)..............................................................................................................................................74

Figure E3. What product or products were being advertised or promoted? (Sample: 217)........74

Figure F1. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)...........................................................................................................................................77

Figure G1. Which of the following changes have you made in the past six months to your diet? (Sample: 794) ...................................................................................................................79

Figure G2. For which of the following reasons did you make changes to your diet? (Sample: 794)..............................................................................................................................80

Figure 3.1. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)...................................................................................................................................84

Figure 3.2. Mean HSR displayed on pack, by HSR Category Class, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) ..............................................................................................................................85

Figure 3.3. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, by HSR Category Class, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015).................................................................................86

Figure 3.4. Mean energy content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)............................................................................................88

Figure 3.5. Mean saturated fat content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)..................................................................................88

Figure 3.6. Mean sugars content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)................................................................................................89

Figure 3.7. Mean sodium content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)............................................................................................89

Figure 3.8. Mean protein content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)............................................................................................90

Figure 3.9. Mean fibre content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)................................................................................................90

National Heart Foundation of Australia ii

iii Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

TABLESTable I outlines a summary of the key features of the FoodTrackTM platform xvi

Table 1.2 HSR Categories that had 2% or less of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) 23

Table 1.3. Proportion of products (%) for each manufacturer and retailer displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) 25

Table 1.4. Manufacturers and retailers with more than 10 products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) 27

Table 1.5. Manufacturers and retailers in the four HSR breakfast cereal categories, displaying the HSR system graphic, and their respective volume market shares (% tonnes) within the breakfast cereal category, according to Retail World8,9,* at Year 1 June 2014 to June 2015) 31

Table 1.6. Technical errors identified when assessing consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the Style Guide, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) 39

Table 1.1. HSR Calibration Category and associated HSR Category Class 22

Table 2.1. Sample characteristics of the population surveyed for Wave 1 45

Table A1. On average, how often do you visit a supermarket to do your grocery shopping? (Sample: 2,036) 46

Table A2. On average, how much do you spend in one visit to the supermarket? (Sample: 2,036) 47

Table B1. Age group 49

Table B2. Gender 49

Table B3. Household income 50

Table B4. BMI 50

Table B5. Indigenous status 50

Table B6. Language 52

Table B7. Residential location 52

Table B8. Children at home 52

Table B9. Age group 53

Table B10. Gender 53

Table B11. Household income 53

Table B12. BMI 54

Table B13. Indigenous status 55

Table B14. Language 55

Table B15. Residential location 55

Table B16. Children at home 55

Table C1. Age group 56

National Heart Foundation of Australia iv

Table C2. Gender 57

Table C3. Household income 57

Table C4. BMI 57

Table C5. Language 57

Table C6. Residential location 58

Table C7. Children at home 58

Table C8. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084) 59

Table C10. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe is the easiest to understand? (Sample: 1,084) 61

Table C9. How strongly do you agree or disagree that a product with more stars means…? (Sample: 1,084) 61

Table C11. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe is the easiest to recognise? (Sample: 1,084) 62

Table C12. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe provides sufficient information? (Sample: 1,084) Provides sufficient information 63

Table C13. Overall, please select the style you prefer the most? (Sample: 1,084) 64

Table D1. In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the HSR system graphic? (Sample: 1,084) 65

Table D2. Age group 65

Table D3. BMI 65

Table D4. Household income 66

Table D5. Gender 66

Table D6. Language 66

Table D7. Children at home 66

Table D8. Residential location 66

Table D9. Did the HSR system graphic on the product influence your choice? (Sample: 489) 67

Table D10. How did it influence your choice? (Sample: 273) 67

Table D11. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product? (Sample: 273) 67

Table D12. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product? (Sample: 1,084) 68

Table D13. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084) 69



v Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1


Table E1. In the last three months, do you remember seeing, hearing or reading any advertising or promotions about the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084) 73

Table E2. After seeing or hearing this advertising or promotion(s) for products with a HSR system graphic, did it influence you to buy a product or products you normally wouldn’t buy? (Sample: 217) 74

Table F1. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084) 75



Table F4. Age group 76

Table F5. BMI 76

Table F6. Household Income 76

Table F7. Children at home 76

Table F8. Language 76

Table F9. Gender 77

Table F10. Residential location 77

Table G1. In general, thinking about all the food you buy, how concerned are you about how healthy the food is for you? (Sample: 2,036) 78

Table G2. Thinking about your diet, would you say that what you usually eat is? (Sample: 2,036) 78

Table G3. Over the past six months, have you made any changes to your diet? (Sample: 2,036) 79

Table G4. In general, would you say your overall health is? (Sample: 2,036) 81

Table G5. In a typical week, on how many days would you do moderate or vigorous physical activity for at least 30 minutes? (Sample: 2,036) 81

Table G6. How many serves of fruit (including fresh, dried, frozen and tinned fruit) do you usually eat each day? (Sample: 2,036) 82

Table G7. How many serves of vegetables (including fresh, frozen and tinned vegetables) do you usually eat each day? (Sample: 2,036) 82

Table 3.1. Number of products (n) in each HSR Category Class, by HSR vs non-HSR products, for each nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) 87

Table A1.1. Products with HSF graphic found in-store by manufacturer and brand 95

Compliance checklist 99

Table A3.1. Classification system examples 108

National Heart Foundation of Australia vi

AcknowledgementsProject teamProject Manager – Ms Xenia Cleanthous, Manager Nutrition Data & Analysis, Health Outcomes Division, National Heart Foundation of Australia

Ms Melanie Chisholm, National Manager, Health Outcomes Division, National Heart Foundation of Australia

Ms Rachael Reynolds, Nutrition Data Officer, Health Outcomes Division, National Heart Foundation of Australia

Professor Manny Noakes, Research Program Director, Food and Nutrition, CSIRO

Dr Jill Freyne, Principle Research Scientist, Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO

Associate Professor Sarah McNaughton, Discipline Leader Nutrition & Dietetics, Deakin University

Project staffMs Theresa Pham and Ms Emily Scott, Nutrition Field Officers, Health Outcomes Division, National Heart Foundation of Australia

Casual Nutrition Data Collection team for FoodTrackTM

Mr Bill Stavreski, National Director Data & Evaluation, Health Outcomes Division, National Heart Foundation of Australia

Ms Cliona Fitzpatrick, Research and Evaluation Consultant, Health Outcomes Division, National Heart Foundation of Australia

Mr Simon Gibson, Software Engineer, Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO

Ms Karen Harrap, Senior Engineer, Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO

FundingThe National Heart Foundation of Australia was awarded the funding for the Tender number Health/74/1415; monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system, in May 2015.

vii Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

Abbreviations and acronymsAFGC Australian Food and Grocery CouncilAoE Area of EnquiryAoEs Areas of EnquiryApp Smartphone applicationBMI Body Mass IndexChecklist The Compliance Checklist developed by the Heart Foundation for

assessment against the Style Guideconc. FV Concentrated fruit and vegetableCSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationCt Compared toDepartment The Department of HealthFoP Front-of-packFoPL Front-of-pack labellingForum Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food RegulationFramework Program Logic FrameworkFSANZ Food Standards Australia and New ZealandFVNL Fruit, vegetable, nut, legume as defined in the Food Standards

Australia and New Zealand Food Standards CodeHeart Foundation The National Heart Foundation of AustraliaHSR Health Star Rating – a star rating scale of ½ to 5 stars (with ½

star increments)HSR system Health Star Rating system – a star rating scale of ½ to 5 stars

(with ½ star increments, underpinned by the Health Star Rating Calculator) and the display of information icons for energy and specific nutrients

HSR system graphic Health Star Rating system graphic – a display of the Health Star Rating +/- information icons for energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium, and can include one optional positive nutrient (such as calcium or fibre).

HSRAC Health Star Rating Advisory CommitteeHSRC Health Star Rating CalculatorNIP Nutrition information panelStyle Guide Health Star Rating Style GuideYear 1 The first year of implementation of the Health Star Rating system

(June 2014 to June 2015)Year 2 The second year of implementation of the Health Star Rating

system (June 2015 to June 2016)

National Heart Foundation of Australia viii

Health Star Rating system graphics

ix Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

Year 1 of the Health Star Rating system at a glanceKey achievements Uptake of the Health Star Rating (HSR) system is tracking well, with presence on

1,526 products at Month 15 of implementation - nearly 3.5 times that of the Daily Intake Guide, for the corresponding time-point.

The majority of manufacturers and retailers (92% of products) are implementing the HSR system graphic consistent with the HSR Style Guide.

The majority of manufacturers and retailers (at least 95%) are displaying the correct HSR on pack.

There have been significant increases in awareness, both unprompted and prompted, in a short time frame (comparing April 2015 to September 2015).

Based on those aware of the HSR system, 45% of consumers reported purchasing a product with the HSR system graphic on it – more than a five-fold increase in a six-month period. It is also having an influence on purchasing habits: more than one in two reported that the HSR played a factor in which product they purchased.

For the future Although uptake of the HSR system is tracking well, the number of products on

which it has been implemented to date represents a low proportion of the food supply. To optimise the impact of the HSR system, it is important to maintain continued uptake by the manufacturers and retailers.

Trust and relevance are the two key drivers that influence use and understanding of the HSR system. Although there has been a significant jump in the past six months, one in two consumers aware of the HSR system still don’t see it as personally relevant or trust the system. Both are critical factors to ensure usage rates continue to rise and influence purchasing decisions.

National Heart Foundation of Australia x

Executive summaryThis interim report details the results from the first year of monitoring and evaluation of the Health Star Rating (HSR) system (June 2014 to June 2015) under the three specified Areas of Enquiry (AoEs).

AoE 1: Label implementation and consistency with the HSR system Style GuideAoE 1 was assessed under three sub-sections: uptake of the HSR system by manufacturers and retailers, consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic against the HSR Style Guide (the Style Guide), and a comparison of the HSR system value displayed on pack to that determined by the Health Star Rating Calculator (HSRC).

At Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015), the HSR system graphic was displayed on 363 products out of an eligible 12,176 products from the FoodTrackTM database (3% of total product suite), and on at least one product in 37/81 (46%) HSR Categories. Only 22 manufacturers and retailers, from the 665 recorded in FoodTrackTM, displayed the HSR system graphic (3%). Private Label – Coles displayed the HSR system graphic on the greatest number of products (132/363, 36%) in a variety of categories. The ‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ HSR Category had the highest number of products displaying the HSR system graphic (n = 59), followed by ‘Mueslis’ (n = 37), however it was displayed on the greatest proportion of products in the ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’ HSR Category (46%).

In September 2015, 1,526 products were identified in-store (Coles and Woolworths) as displaying the HSR system graphic (Month 15 since implementation of the HSR system). At Month 15, uptake of the Daily Intake Guide (DIG) was 448 products compared to 1,526 products at the equivalent time point for the HSR system (nearly 3.5 times higher).

Option 1 (refer to key at end of this section) of the HSR system graphic was displayed on the greatest number of products (121/363, 33%), 93 of which were from the four breakfast cereals categories (‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’). Within products displaying Option 1, 50% displayed fibre as the optional nutrient. Of the 121 products displaying Option 1, 101 were by Private Label – Coles and Nestle Australia.

The majority (92%) of products displaying the HSR system graphic were consistent with the Style Guide. Of the 28 products identified as having a technical error, 13 products displayed a serving size as part of the HSR system graphic that was not part of the industry-agreed standard serving size range outlined in the Style Guide.

For 95% of products (314/331, excludes those displaying the energy icon only) the HSR displayed on pack matched the output from the HSRC. Of the 17 products for which the HSR did not match, 16 were out by +/- 0.5 star and one by 1.0 star, however 11 of these products did not have sufficient data on pack to be able to fully calculate the HSR.

xi Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

AoE 2: Consumer awareness and ability to use the HSR system correctlyAoE 2 was assessed under four sub-sections: awareness of the HSR system, consumer knowledge and understanding of the HSR system, correct use the HSR system and the level of trust consumers have in the HSR system. This assessment was conducted via an online survey with a sample of 2,036 Australian adults.

Of those surveyed, unprompted awareness of the HSR system has increased from 3% in April 2015 to 11% in September 2015. Likewise, prompted awareness of the HSR system has increased significantly from 33% in April 2015 to 53% in September 2015.

Close to 90% of respondents understand that a product with one star means that it is less healthy compared to a product with more stars, and likewise, that a product with five stars represents the healthiest choice.

Of those aware of the HSR system, almost two in three respondents were aware that the HSR system is a rating scale of the healthiness of a food product or a comparison between two products in the same category. More than two in five reported that they have purchased a product with the HSR system graphic in the past three months, which is significantly higher compared to April 2015 (8%). Of those who had reported purchasing a product with the HSR system graphic, more than one in two reported that the rating scale had influenced their purchasing decision; 37% reported that the rating scale influenced them to purchase a product that they normally wouldn’t purchase because it had more stars.

The proportion of respondents who reported they trust the HSR system has increased from 38% in April 2015 to 51% in September 2015. More than 70% of respondents also reported that the HSR system is easy to use and easy to understand.

Option 1 of the HSR system graphic was the most preferred Option and was reported to be the easiest to understand, the easiest to recognise and the Option that was perceived to provide sufficient information.

AoE 3: Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR system graphicThe most commonly displayed HSR on pack was 4.0, which was on 30% of products, and was also the mean HSR. The ‘2 – Food’ Category Class had the majority of products displaying the HSR system graphic (86%). For each nutrient that underpins the HSRC (energy, saturated fat, sugars, sodium, protein and fibre), the mean nutrient content per 100 g/100 mL was similar between HSR products and non-HSR products across all HSR Category Classes.

National Heart Foundation of Australia xii

Background and objectivesAgreement to develop the HSR systemIn December 2011, the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation (the Forum) agreed to support Recommendation 50 of Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy1 namely that an interpretive Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL) scheme should be developed.

At its 14 June 2013 meeting, the Forum agreed to develop and implement a FoPL scheme – the Health Star Rating (HSR) system – that, except for agreed exemptions, applies to all packaged, manufactured or processed foods presented ready for sale to the customer in the retail sector.

What is the HSR system?The HSR system comprises a star rating scale of one-half star to five stars (with half star increments) and the display of information icons for energy and specific nutrients.

The star rating component of the HSR system is underpinned by the HSR Calculator (HSRC), which was developed by the former FoPL Technical Design Working Group in consultation with Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The HSRC comprises a modified version of the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion that was developed by FSANZ for the purpose of Standard 1.2.7 – Nutrition, Health and Related Claims.2 The Forum endorsed the HSRC on 13 December 2013. Foods with more stars are considered a healthier choice than similar products with less stars.

Along with the HSR, the HSR system graphic displays information icons for energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium, and can include one optional positive nutrient (such as calcium or fibre). The HSRC, however, takes into account a greater number of food components than those displayed. These other components include fruit, vegetable, nut and legume (FVNL) content and, in some instances, calcium, fibre and protein. The latter considerations recognise the role of cereals, lean meat, dairy products, fish, fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes as important components of a healthy diet. Taking these components into account, points are allocated based on the nutritional composition of 100 g or 100 mL, based on the units used in the nutrition information panel (NIP) of a food product. Energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium were chosen for presentation because they contribute to overweight and obesity, and diet-related chronic disease (e.g. cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes), as well as being nutrients of interest to consumers (as indicated by market research).

The HSR system is a joint initiative of Australian, state and territory, and New Zealand governments, and was developed in partnership with industry, public health and consumer groups.

xiii Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

Objective of the HSR systemThe objective of the HSR system is to provide convenient, rel

evant and readily understood nutrition information and/ or guidance on food packs to assist consumers to make informed food purchases and healthier eating choices.3

Implementation of the HSR systemThe HSR Advisory Committee (HSRAC) is responsible for overseeing the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system and for providing advice to the FoPL Steering Committee, and in turn to the Forum on related matters. The Department of Health (the Department) provides independent secretariat support to the HSRAC.

At its meeting on 27 June 2014, the Forum agreed that the HSR system should be voluntarily implemented over five years (27 June 2014 to 26 June 2019) with a review of the progress of implementation after two years. Implementation of the HSR system officially began on 27 June 2014.

Monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system: Areas of EnquiryAt its 15 July 2014 meeting, the HSRAC agreed that the Areas of Enquiry (AoEs) for the purposes of monitoring and evaluating the HSR system would be:

1. Label implementation and consistency with the HSR system Style Guide (AoE 1)

2. Consumer awareness and ability to use the HSR system correctly (AoE 2)

3. Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR system graphic (AoE 3).

In March 2015, the Department put out a request for tender for the provision of services to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the HSR system. The National Heart Foundation of Australia (the Heart Foundation) submitted a request for tender and was awarded this in May 2015 (Tender number Health/74/1415).

Project objectiveThe objective of this project is to objectively monitor and evaluate the implementation, awareness and use, and changes in the food supply, of the HSR system over a two-year period (27 June 2014 to 26 June 2016).

This objective will be addressed under the three AoEs described above.

In addition, the Heart Foundation was required to conduct more regular monitoring of the uptake of the HSR system over three time points within the two-year period. The results from this additional monitoring work are included in this report.

National Heart Foundation of Australia xiv

Program Logic FrameworkTo assess the implementation and impact of the HSR system, a Program Logic Framework (Framework) was developed under the required deliverables:

Outline key outcomes desired from the monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system and relevant indicators of achievement.

Address the three AoEs and detail all activities to be carried out and data to be obtained to successfully report against each AoE.

Identify data sources and methods to be used for the purpose of the ongoing collection of all data and information necessary for successful monitoring for the HSR system implementation period (27 June 2014 to 26 June 2019).

The general principle of a Framework is to provide a visual representation, usually linear, of a sequence of steps that need to occur for a project to meet its desired outcomes. The general flow of a Framework is inputs, activities and output, outcomes and impact.4 For completeness, the Framework includes the outcomes up to 26 June 2016 (i.e. the two-year period) and also the impact thereafter for the two-to-five-year period (up to 26 June 2019). Note that the work for this project is for the first two years of the implementation period only (June 2014 to June 2016), and this document only reports on Year 1 (the first year of implementation of the HSR system, June 2014 to June 2015).

The Framework was implemented to specifically address the monitoring, evaluation and reporting for the implementation of the HSR system against the three AoEs.

The Framework developed by the Project Team and agreed to by the HSRAC at the 2 October 2015 teleconference is outlined in Figure 1.

xv Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

Figure 1. Program Logic Framework for the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the HSR system

National Heart Foundation of Australia xvi

General methodologyFood composition data and products displaying the HSR system graphic: Food TrackTM

To meet the requirements of assessment against AoE 1 and AoE 3 it was necessary to have access to retrospective and current food composition data for products displaying the HSR system graphic, as well as data for those that do not, for comparison.

We used FoodTrackTM to address this. FoodTrackTM is a food composition database that contains nutrient and other information (e.g. manufacturer, brand, ingredients and FoPL) on food products sold in major Australian supermarkets (Coles and Woolworths). It is a joint initiative between the Heart Foundation and the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and was first implemented in February 2014.

Data is collected using the FoodTrackTM platform on a rolling annual collection schedule, i.e. every category is collected every year. The collection process involves trained field officers with a background in nutrition and/ or dietetics. The field officers use a custom-designed application (app) for an iPad mini to collect the data and selected images. Once the data is collected, it is uploaded into a remote database. Data can then be accessed through a web portal and extracted and audited in-house by Heart Foundation staff. Auditing of the whole product suite is conducted continuously throughout the year.

The first year of data collection was completed in early 2015, with nutrient and product data collected for more than 13,000 products. The second year of data collection is due for completion in early 2016, and annually thereafter. FoodTrackTM houses data for more than 80 fresh and packaged food and beverage categories, across more than 90% of the Australian retail market.

Data for products displaying the HSR system graphic has been recorded using FoodTrackTM since its inception in 2014. This includes the presence (or absence) of a HSR system graphic on pack, and any required accompanying information such as the ingredients list, the nutritional information panel and the product descriptor information.

Table I. outlines a summary of the key features of the FoodTrackTM platform.

Feature InformationNumber of categories collected > 80 food and beverage categories, including some

fresh foods

Category coverage > 90% national market coverage within each category

Product coverage > 13,000 products annually

Stores visited Nationally representative sample across major Coles and Woolworths in metropolitan Victoria

Collection frequency All data updated annually, new products also recorded

Collection schedule Rolling collection throughout the year, seasonality factored in to schedule, where possible

Key exclusions from dataset Baby formula, supplements (vitamins and minerals), alcohol

xvii Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1

Customising FoodTrack™ for this projectTo meet the project requirements, FoodTrack™ was customised to include additional variables for reporting. A Glossary was developed in consultation with the Department to map products in FoodTrack™ to a categorisation system specifically for this project, including key inclusions and exclusions within each category. All products that fell within the required time frame for reporting were allocated according to the Glossary definitions, and mapped to the four variables described below.

1. HSR Primary Category – This is a primary categorisation system that is matched closely to the primary categories used in the Australian Health Survey.5 Each HSR Primary Category encompasses multiple HSR Categories. For example the Non- alcoholic beverages HSR Primary Category contains the following HSR Categories: ‘Fruit and vegetable juices’, ‘Breakfast drinks’, ‘Milk modifiers and flavourings’, ‘Sugar (or artificially) – sweetened beverages’ and ‘Tea and coffee’.

2. HSR Category – This is the main categorisation system used specifically for this project and is based primarily on the definitions outlined in the Glossary.

3. HSR Category Class – This is the categorisation system of products displaying the HSR system graphic as outlined in the HSR Guide for Industry to the Health Star Rating Calculator,6 whereby every product displaying the HSR system graphic is categorised into one of the following six Category Classes:

- 1 – Beverages

- 1D – Dairy beverages

- 2 – Food

- 2D – Dairy food

- 3 – Oils and spreads

- 3D – Cheese and processed cheese.

Each Category Class aligns with a different algorithm that underpins the HSRC – a tool that manufacturers and retailers can use to determine the HSR of their product(s).

HSR Year – This is the time frame that relates specifically to the year of implementation of the HSR system:

- Year 1 – the first year of implementation of the HSR system (June 2014 to June 2015)

- Year 2 – the second year of implementation of the HSR system (June 2015 to June 2016).

All technical changes to the FoodTrackTM platform were performed by senior software engineers at CSIRO in consultation with the Project Manager.

National Heart Foundation of Australia xviii

Chapter 1 - Area of Inquiry

Chapter 1- Area of Enquiry 1 Label implementation and consistency with the Health Star Rating system Style Guide1.1. Chapter summaryAll sections below relate to Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) unless otherwise specified.

1.1.1. Uptake of the HSR system The HSR system graphic was displayed on 363 products out of an eligible 12,176

products from the FoodTrackTM database (3% of the total product suite), and on at least one product in 37/81 (46%) HSR Categories.

Ninety-one per cent of products displaying the HSR system graphic used Options 1 to 4 (refer to key at end of this section).

Option 5 (energy icon only) of the HSR system graphic was exclusively displayed on products in both the ‘Confectionary’ and ‘Relishes, chutneys and pastes’ categories.

‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ had the highest number of products displaying the HSR system graphic (n = 59), followed by ‘Mueslis’ (n = 37).

The HSR system graphic was displayed on the greatest proportion of products in the ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’ HSR Category (46%).

The four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’, ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’) were the only HSR Categories to have representation of the HSR system on more than 25% of their products.

Within the four breakfast cereal categories, Nestle Australia had the highest number of products displaying the HSR system graphic (n = 56, 79% of their breakfast cereals product suite in FoodTrackTM).

19Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – Year 1


Twenty-two manufacturers and retailers (3%), from the 665 recorded in FoodTrackTM, displayed the HSR system graphic.

Out of all retailers and manufacturers, Private Label – Coles displayed the HSR system graphic on the greatest number of products (132/363, 36%) in a variety of categories.

1.1.2. Comparison of uptake of the HSR system to the Daily Intake Guide (DIG)

In September 2015, 1,526 products were identified in-store (Coles and Woolworths) as displaying the HSR system graphic (Month 15 since implementation of the HSR system).

At Month 15, uptake of the DIG was 448 products compared to 1,526 products at the equivalent time point for the HSR system (nearly 3.5 times higher).

1.1.3. Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR Style Guide

Option 1 was displayed on the greatest number of products (121/363, 33%).

Option 5 was displayed on the least number of products (9%).

Twenty products displayed a HSR system graphic that was a combination of Option 3 and Option 5 of the HSR system graphic.

Fourteen out of 20 manufacturers and retailers displayed a single option of the HSR system graphic, with Option 4 being the most popular (9/14).

In 18/37 HSR Categories, exclusive use of one Option was observed.

Option 1 was implemented on the greatest number of products in the four breakfast cereal categories (n = 93).

Within products displaying Option 1, 50% displayed fibre as the optional nutrient.

Use of Option 1 was dominated by Private Label Coles and Nestle Australia, which, combined, displayed this Option on 101 of the 121 products (83%) displaying Option 1.

Only 28 of the 363 products displaying the HSR system graphic (8%) were identified as having a technical error.

The most common technical error was that 13 products displayed a serving size as part of the HSR system graphic that was not an approved industry- agreed standard serving size as outlined in the Style Guide.

1.1.4. Assessment of the HSR displayed on pack using the HSRC For 95% of products (314/331, excludes those displaying the energy icon only), the

HSR displayed on pack matched the output from the HSRC.

Of the 17 products for which the HSR did not match:

- 16 were out by +/- 0.5 star and one by 1.0 stars

National Heart Foundation of Australia 20


- 11 did not have sufficient data on pack to be able to fully calculate the HSR and six products had all required data available but still did not match.

1.2. MethodologyOutputs for AoE 1 were specifically divided into three key components, as per the Framework:

1. Uptake of the HSR system by manufacturers and retailers

2. Assessment of the implementation of the HSR system graphic against the HSR system Style Guide (the Style Guide)

3. Assessment of the HSR displayed on pack against that determined by the HSRC.

There are five different ways (‘Options’) in which the HSR system graphic can be

displayed on pack. These are outlined in the Style Guide, along with their respective images:7

Option 1 – HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrient icons (saturated fat, sugars, and sodium) + 1 optional nutrient icon

Option 2 – HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrient icons

Option 3 – HSR + energy icon

Option 4 – HSR only

Option 5 – Energy icon only.

An example of each Option of the HSR system graphic is outlined in the ‘Chapter summary’ above.

1.2.1. Uptake of the HSR system by manufacturers and retailersTo conduct this assessment, CSIRO software engineers developed automated reporting scripts in FoodTrackTM that provided reports relating to uptake of the HSR system. The scripts included the following parameters:

Whole Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) product suite in FoodTrackTM

HSR Primary Category, HSR Category, HSR Category Class

Those displaying Option 5 of the HSR system graphic

Those displaying Options 1 to 4 of the HSR system graphic

Manufacturers and retailers.

For categories that had a large market presence of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015), indication of market share for major manufacturers and retailers was provided, where available, to allow for a more specific assessment of the impact on the food supply. The 2014 and 2015 Retail World Annual Reports8,9 were used to source such content and categories mapped as closely as possible to their respective HSR Category(ies).



Comparison of the uptake of the HSR system to the uptake of the DIGFollowing development of the Framework, the Heart Foundation was required to conduct more regular monitoring of the HSR system uptake over three waves. The Heart Foundation conducted the first wave in September 2015, and subsequent waves will be conducted in January and May of 2016. This work mainly aimed to capture the number of products displaying the HSR system graphic at a given time point (refer to Appendix 1 for the Wave 1 Report).

The results from Wave 1 of this work were used to compare uptake of the HSR system

to that of the DIG over time. Data on the uptake of the DIG was sourced from the Daily Intake Guide Audit Report May 2013 and personal communication with the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC).10

1.2.2. Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR system Style Guide

For this assessment, Version 3.3 of the Style Guide,7 released on 25 March 2015 was used. Additional supplementary materials that are referenced in the Style Guide were also used, including the Food Standards Code.11

To assess the products at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) that displayed the HSR system graphic against the guidelines outlined in the Style Guide, a Compliance Checklist (Checklist) was developed by the Heart Foundation. The Checklist consolidated content from the Style Guide into a systematic series of Yes/No questions, where possible, to make the assessment as objective as possible (refer to Appendix 2 for the Checklist).

The Checklist was divided into five sections, one for each of the five different options for which the HSR system graphic can be displayed on pack, as there were some assessment criteria specific to each Option. This analysis was conducted on an individual product basis using the front-of-pack (FoP) and nutrition information panel (NIP) images extracted from FoodTrackTM.

Assessment of products displaying the HSR system graphic against the Style Guide was conducted against the following parameters:

Those displaying each Option of the HSR system graphic

Manufacturers and retailers

HSR Category

Variation to the Style Guide

Within those displaying Option 1 of the HSR system graphic, optional nutrient by:

- HSR Category

- type of optional nutrient

- manufacturers and retailers.



1.2.3. Assessment of HSR displayed on pack against that determined by the HSRC

For this assessment, Version 3.3 of the HSRC (20 January 2015) was used in the available Microsoft Excel format.12

The HSRC has three sections that must be populated to determine the HSR:

1 The categorisation system underpinning the algorithms

2 The NIP data for the relevant nutrients

3 The percentage of fruit, vegetable, nut, legume (% FVNL) and percentage of concentrated (conc) Fruit and Vegetable values (% conc F+V).

For Part 1, products were categorised according to the six HSR Category Classes, and further to the HSR Calibration Category provided in the HSRC.6,12 Table1.1summarises the mapping process.

Table1.1. HSR Calibration Category and associated HSR Category Class

HSR Calibration Category HSR Category Class

Beverages, non-dairy 1 – Beverages

Core dairy – beverages 1D – Dairy beverages

Core cereals 2 – Food

Fruit 2 – Food

Non-core foods 2 – Food

Protein 2 – Food

Vegetables 2 – Food

Core dairy – yoghurt, soft cheese 2D - Dairy Food

Fats, oils 3 – Oils and spreads

Core dairy – cheese 3D – Cheese and processed cheese

For Part 2 , the relevant nutrient data from product NIPs was extracted from FoodTrackTM

and transferred into the Excel version. These nutrients include energy, saturated fat, sugars, sodium, protein and fibre. All of these nutrients, except fibre, are mandatory on the NIP. To determine the fibre content, the NIP data was used, where available. Where fibre was not available on the NIP, it was treated as missing data.

The HSRC requires the NIP values to be entered per100 g/100 mL, and should apply to the form of the food ‘as consumed’, in most cases.6 As this data must be numerical for the HSRC to identify it, the following rules were created:

Any NIP data with ‘<’ values was treated as a whole number, e.g. ‘<1’ treated as 1.

Any data that was missing (N/A) was treated as missing data, not zero.

For Part 3, the % FVNL and % conc F+V values were determined from the ingredients images, where available. For some products where the data required to determine the %



FVNL and % conc F+V contents was incomplete, this was noted, and assumptions made, where deemed suitable (refer to Appendix 3 for a definition of foods that contribute to FVNL values and for examples on managing incomplete datasets).

For each product at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) displaying the HSR system graphic, the HSR determined by using the HSRC was compared to the HSR displayed on pack and, where differences were observed, these differences were grouped into themes, where possible. As the aim of this activity was to determine if the HSR displayed on pack matched that determined by the HSRC, products displaying Option 5 (the energy icon only) were excluded from this analysis.

1.2.4. Data analysisUnless specified, all analyses for AoE 1 were conducted in Microsoft Excel 2013. Automated reporting scripts were developed for use in FoodTrackTM, a cloud-based SQL database.

1.3. Results1.3.1. Uptake of the HSR system at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)At Year 1, the HSR system graphic was displayed on 363 products out of an eligible 12,176 products from the FoodTrackTM database. This represented 3% of the total product suite.

Of these 363 products, the majority (91%) displayed Options 1 to 4 and the remaining smaller percentage displayed Option 5. Forty-six per cent (37/81) of eligible HSR Categories in FoodTrackTM had at least one product that displayed the HSR system graphic as illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Seventeen HSR Categories had 2% or less of products that displayed the HSR system graphic at Year 1. These categories are listed in Table1.2, and are excluded from Figure 1.1.

Table1.2. HSR Categories that had 2% or less of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

HSR Category Name

Number of products (n) displaying HSR system graphic

Number of products (n) without HSR system graphic

Proportion of products (%) displaying HSR system graphic

Breakfast spreads 3 180 2

Cooking sauces 7 279 2

Dairy milks – plain 2 107 2

Grains – processed 1 55 2

Pasta and noodles – plain 5 249 2

Seafood – canned 4 248 2

Spreads – nut and seeds 1 59 2

Cereal-based bars 1 120 1



HSR Category Name

Number of products (n) displaying HSR system graphic

Number of products (n) without HSR system graphic

Proportion of products (%) displaying HSR system graphic

Cheese – hard and processed 2 350 1

Cream and cream alternatives 1 69 1

Smallgoods 3 207 1

Sugar (or artificially) – sweetened beverages 4 443 1

Vegetable oils 2 177 1

Vegetables – plain 3 384 1

Cheese – soft 1 218 0

Meat – plain 1 203 0

Ready meals 1 275 0

Figure 1.1. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)



The four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’, ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’) were the only HSR Categories to have representation of the HSR system graphic on more than 25% of their products, each (Figure 1.1).

‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ also had the highest number of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (n = 59), and this was followed by ‘Mueslis’ (n = 37). Combined, these two categories had around one-quarter of all products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (96/363). In the ‘Fruit and vegetable juices’ and ‘Soups’ categories, although having over 20 products each that displayed the HSR system graphic, this represented less than 10% coverage within each of these categories.

The HSR system graphic was displayed on 19 products in the ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’ category, which represented the greatest proportion of products within any category (46%). A similar trend was observed for ‘Hot cereals – plain’, for which the HSR system graphic was displayed on only eight products, but this represented 30% of the whole category.

Most categories displayed only Options 1 to 4 of the HSR system graphic, however Option 5 was exclusively displayed in both the ‘Confectionary’ and the ‘Relishes, chutneys and pastes’ HSR Categories. In both of these categories this number of products represented a small proportion of the whole category (4% and 3%, respectively).

Table1.3. Proportion of products (%) for each manufacturer and retailer displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)


Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic

Total manufacturer and retailer product count (n)

Proportion of retailer and manufacturer products (%) displaying the HSR system graphic

The Wrigley Company 13 13 100Spreyton Fresh Tasmania 1 1 100Betta Foods Australia 8 8 100Emma & Tom Foods 7 8 88Monster Health Food Co 4 5 80Food For Health 5 9 56Popina Foods 3 7 43Rinoldi Pasta 5 16 31Freedom Nutritional Products 11 36 31Chris Dips 4 16 25Nestle Australia 59 296 20Vitality Brands Worldwide 3 16 19Sanitarium Health Foods Company 17 94 18

Mayver’s Health Time 1 6 17




Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic

Total manufacturer and retailer product count (n)

Proportion of retailer and manufacturer products (%) displaying the HSR system graphic

Private Label – Coles 132 1531 8Lion – Dairy & Drinks 20 302 7HJ Heinz Company Australia 11 276 4Frucor Beverages 1 23 4SPC Ardmona Operations 4 119 3Private Label – Woolworths 51 1811 3Simplot Australia 2 354 1Greens General Foods 1 72 1

Twenty-two manufacturers and retailers, from the 665 recorded in FoodTrackTM, displayed the HSR system graphic on their products at Year 1 (3% of product suite). Table 1.3 outlines, for each manufacturer and retailer, the proportion of their products in FoodTrackTM that displayed the HSR system graphic at Year 1.

Figure 1.2 displays the number of products in each HSR Category that displayed the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1.

At Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015), Private Label – Coles alone contributed to 36% of total products displaying the HSR system graphic (132/363), however the HSR system graphic was displayed on only 8% of their total product suite. This was followed by Nestle Australia (n=52), which displayed the HSR system graphic on 17% of their products at Year 1, and then Private Label – Woolworths (n = 51, only 3% of their products). Although the following manufacturers displayed the HSR system graphic on only one of their products at Year 1, this represented between 1% and 100% of their product suite, depending on the manufacturer: Frucor Beverages (n = 1, 4%), Green’s General Foods (n = 1, 1%), Spreyton Fresh Tasmania (n = 1, 100%), and Mayver’s Health Time (n = 1, 17%).

Monster Health Food Co and Emma & Tom Foods both had seven or less products displaying the HSR system graphic, but this represented 80% or more of their total product count, each.

Eighteen of 22 manufacturers and retailers used Options 1 to 4 of the HSR system graphic on their products. Private Label – Coles was the only retailer (and manufacturer) to use all five options of the HSR system graphic on their products. Three manufacturers exclusively used Option 5 of the HSR system graphic: Frucor Beverages, Betta Foods Australia and The Wrigley Company. The latter two’s HSR products represented 100% coverage for these manufacturers.



Figure 1.2. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)*

Table1.4. Manufacturers and retailers with more than 10 products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)


Number of products (n) products displaying HSR system graphic

Number of HSR Categories (n)

Number and proportion (n,%) of HSR Categories with products displaying HSR system graphic

The Wrigley Company 13 1 1 (100)Private Label – Coles 132 72 27 (38)Sanitarium Health Foods Company 17 8 3 (38)

Freedom Nutritional Products 11 12 3 (25)Nestle Australia 59 21 5 (24)Private Label – Woolworths 51 76 10 (13)Lion – Dairy & Drinks 20 11 1 (9)HJ Heinz Company Australia 11 22 1 (5)

* Note: Lion – Dairy & Drinks and Frucor Beverages products have been classified according to the dominant HSR option displayed on pack, despite slight variance (refer to the Style Guide assessment work).



There were eight manufacturers and retailers that had greater than 10 products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1. These are summarised in Table1.4.

Of the eight manufacturers and retailers listed in Table1.4, two had presence in a single category: Lion – Dairy & Drinks (‘Fruit and vegetable juices’) and HJ Heinz Company Australia (‘Soups’). The Wrigley Company (‘Confectionary’) also displayed the HSR system graphic on one category, however this was their only HSR Category in FoodTrackTM, i.e. they displayed the HSR system graphic on 100% of the categories on which they were present at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015).

Both Private Label – Coles and Sanitarium Health Foods Company had products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 in 38% of their categories.

The spread of HSR Categories in which the top five manufacturers and retailers (i.e. those from Table 1.4 that were present in more than one HSR Category) displayed the HSR system graphic at Year 1 is displayed in Figure 1.3.

Private Label – Coles displayed the HSR system graphic across the greatest variety of HSR Categories at Year 1 (n = 27), which represented 38% of their HSR Category count (Table1.4). They had greatest coverage in the ‘Mueslis’ and ‘Dips’ HSR Categories (n = 19 and 13, respectively).

Private Label – Woolworths had coverage across seven of these same HSR Categories, and exclusive coverage in the ‘Butter’ category. The greatest number of Private Label – Woolworths products displaying the HSR system was observed in ‘Meat – processed’ and ‘Vegetarian – processed’ (n = 15, both).

Nestle Australia, Sanitarium Health Foods Company and Freedom Nutritional Products all had the greatest presence in the ‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereal’ HSR Category (n = 28, 14 and 9, respectively). No presence of Private Label – Woolworths was observed in the ‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereal’ HSR Category.

The four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’, ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’) contributed to one-third (123/363) of all products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015). Presence of the top five manufacturers and retailers was observed across these four categories (Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3).



Figure 1.3. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by major manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

Table1.5summarises the number and proportion of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015), for the four manufacturers and retailers that, combined, made up more than 89% volume market share (tonnes) of the breakfast cereals category†.8,9

Sanitarium Health Foods Company held the greatest volume market share in both 2014 and 2015 in the breakfast cereals category (34.9% and 38.1%, respectively), and the HSR system graphic was displayed on 67% of their breakfast cereal product suite in FoodTrackTM.

Kellogg (Australia), although holding the second highest volume market share in both years (refer to Table 1.5), did not have any products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1. This would be expected given that products in the four breakfast cereal

† The category as defined in Retail World is called Breakfast Cereals, which also includes breakfast drinks. The market share figures reported could not be adjusted to account for breakfast drinks. No breakfast drinks products displayed the HSR system at Year 1. Sales data from a smaller sub-category Retail World, Health Foods – Cereals, has been excluded as it was not available to report in the same format as that of the Breakfast Cereals category.



categories were collected in April–May 2015 using FoodTrackTM, which was prior to the implementation of the HSR system graphic by Kellogg (Australia) on their products.

Nestle Australia, with the third highest volume market share in this category, had the greatest proportion of products in their breakfast cereal product suite displaying the HSR system graphic (79%). Conversely, Private Label combined (Coles and Woolworths) displayed the HSR system graphic on only 36% of their breakfast cereal product suite. Data for Private Label – Coles and Private Label – Woolworths is presented combined in Table1.5, as their market share could not be separated when using the available Retail World data.

Some manufacturers, such as Freedom Nutritional Products, Monster Health Food Co, Popina Foods and Food For Health, appeared to have a low number of products displaying the HSR system graphic but this represented 61–100% of their breakfast cereals product suite (sales data was not available in the same format, for these smaller manufacturers).



Table1.5. Manufacturers and retailers in the four HSR breakfast cereal categories, displaying the HSR system graphic, and their respective volume market shares (% tonnes) within the breakfast cereal category, according to Retail World‡ 8,9 at Year 1 June 2014 to June 2015)


Number of products(n) displaying the HSR system in the breakfastcereals categories

Number of products(n) without the HSR system in the breakfast cerealscategories

Proportion of products (%) in the HSR breakfast cereals categoriesdisplaying the HSR system graphic

Volume market share (% tonnes) within thebreakfast cereal categoryYear: 2014

Volume market share (% tonnes) within thebreakfast cereal categoryYear: 2015

Food For Health 4 0 100 N/A N/AMonster Health Food Co 4 1 80 N/A N/ANestle Australia 56 15 79 17.1 17.5Popina Foods 3 1 75 N/A N/ASanitarium Health Foods Company 14 7 67 34.9 38.1

Freedom Nutritional Products 11 7 61 N/A N/A

Private Label (combined)†

30 53 36 13.6 12.7

Greens General Foods 1 16 6 N/A N/A

Kellogg (Australia)‡ 0 63 0 24.4 23.6

Others§ N/A N/A N/A 10.1 8.1

‡ The category as defined in Retail World is called Breakfast Cereals, which also includes breakfast drinks. The market share figures reported could not be adjusted to account for breakfast drinks. No breakfast drinks products displayed the HSR system at Year 1. Sales data from a smaller sub-category Retail World, Health Foods – Cereals, has been excluded as it was not available to report in the same format as that of the Breakfast Cereals category. † Private Label – Coles represented 25 of the 30 Private Label products displaying the HSR system graphic (68% of their breakfast cereals product suite), Private Label – Woolworths displayed the HSR system on 5 of their 46 products in the breakfast cereals categories (11%). ‡ Kellogg Australia did not have any products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1. This would be expected given that products in the four breakfast cereal categories were collected in April-May 2015 using FoodTrackTM, which was prior to the implementation of the HSR system graphic by Kellogg Australia on their products.§ Number of products cannot be identified as individual manufacturers not available in Retail World for Others.



1.3.2 Results from Wave 1 of additional uptake monitoring (September 2015)

In September 2015, the Heart Foundation conducted an in-store audit in metropolitan Victorian Coles and Woolworths stores to identify the number of products at a given time point that displayed the HSR system graphic (refer to Appendix 1 for the Report).

A total of 1,513 products were recorded for this given time point. In addition, there were 13 multipack products that displayed more than one HSR system graphic on pack to reflect the different flavour variants. This brought the total number of products to 1,526.

Comparison to uptake of the DIG

When comparing uptake of the HSR system to that of the DIG over time, there was a greater number of products displaying the HSR system graphic at the corresponding time point (Month 15, refer to Figure 1.4). At Month 15, uptake of the DIG was 448 products compared to 1,526 products for the HSR system – this represented nearly a 3.5 times greater presence of HSR vs the DIG for the corresponding time point.

The following should be noted for Figure 1.4:

Data for uptake of the DIG was available as a whole number encompassing ALDI, IGA, Coles and Woolworths whereas data for uptake of the HSR system relates to Coles and Woolworths only. It is therefore likely this represents an underestimation.

As the two time points of implementation and uptake of the DIG and the HSR system differed (i.e. the dates and years), uptake has been reported in months post implementation, as a standard measure, where zero (0) on the x-axis represents the point of implementation for both the HSR system and the DIG, and each time point thereafter represents months 1, 2 and 3 etc. post-implementation.

Figure 1.4. Comparison of the uptake of the HSR system to the uptake of the DIG, over time



1.3.3 Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the HSR Style Guide

During assessment of consistency with the Style Guide, it was identified that 21 products displayed an HSR system graphic that was a combined version of one or more of the five Options. For the purposes of reporting against consistency with the Style Guide, these have been reported in this section as ‘Combined’.

The most popular Option of the HSR system graphic displayed on pack at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) was Option 1 (33%). A similar proportion displayed Option 2 (13%) and Option 3 (14%), and 25% displayed Option 4. Nine per cent displayed Option 5, and the remaining 21 products displayed a combined version of the HSR system graphic (Figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5. Proportion of products (%) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

The 21 products that were identified as displaying a combined version of the HSR system graphic were displayed by Lion – Dairy & Drinks (n = 20) and Frucor Beverages (n = 1). All 21 products were part of the ‘Fruit and vegetable juices’ HSR Category. The combined version of the HSR system graphic displayed on the 20 Lion – Dairy & Drinks products was a combination of Option 3 and Option 5, and the combined version displayed on the Frucor Beverages product was a combination of Option 5 and an optional nutrient icon. For simplicity, these products have been excluded from Figure 1.6.



As shown in Figure 1.6, most manufacturers and retailers (14/20) selected to display only a single Option on their products at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015). Option 4 was the most popular when a single Option was used (9/14). Four manufacturers used two Options on their products and there were no obvious trends for combining Options, e.g. Nestle Australia used Options 1 and 3, Sanitarium Health Foods Company used Options 1 and 4. Private Label – Woolworths was the only retailer (and manufacturer) to use three Options (2, 3 and 4), and Private Label – Coles was the only retailer (and manufacturer) to display all Options of the HSR system graphic.

Figure 1.6. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by manufacturers and retailers, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

In Figure 1.7, in 18/37 HSR Categories, exclusive use of one Option of the HSR system graphic was observed. This was greatest for Option 4 in which six categories used Option 4 only, followed by Option 1 which was used exclusively in four categories. Options 3 and 5 were used exclusively in three categories each, and Option 2 in two categories. Eight categories used two of the Options, ten categories used three Options. Only one category (‘Meat – processed’) used four Options, and no category at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) used all five options of the HSR system graphic.

Option 1 was observed in the greatest number in the four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ n =47, ‘Mueslis’ n = 25, ‘Hot cereals – plain’ n = 6, ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’ n= 15). Conversely, Option 5 was observed in the greatest number in ‘Confectionary’ and ‘Relishes, chutneys and pastes’ categories (n = 21 and 7, respectively), and was used exclusively in both of these categories also.



Figure 1.7. Number of products (n) displaying the HSR system graphic, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

Specifically looking at Option 1, there were a total of 121 products that displayed this Option of the HSR system graphic, across 15 HSR Categories (Figure 1.7.). Within these 15 categories, the four breakfast cereal categories (‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals flavoured’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’) alone made up 77% of the products (93/121). The remaining 11 categories all had less than five products each displaying Option 1. Figure 1.8 outlines the number of products in each HSR Category that displayed Option 1.



Figure 1.9 shows that among products displaying Option 1 of the HSR system graphic, 50% of them displayed fibre as the optional nutrient. This was followed by protein (17%) and iron (10%) while magnesium and Vitamin A were displayed by one product each.

Figure 1.10 shows that use of fibre as the optional nutrient was most prominent in three of the four breakfast cereal HSR Categories (‘Ready-to-each breakfast cereals’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’), and was also used exclusively in the ‘Grains – plain’ category. Use of Calcium was observed mainly in the dairy or dairy alternative categories (‘Milk substitutes – plain and flavoured’, ‘Cheese – hard and processed’, ‘Dairy milks – plain’). Use of folate, iron, magnesium and Vitamin E were exclusive to the ‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ category.

Figure 1.11 shows that use of Option 1 at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) was dominated by Private Label – Coles and Nestle Australia, which each contributed to more than 40% of products (within Option 1) using the optional nutrient icon (n = 49 and 52, respectively).

Consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the Style Guide on products at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) was also assessed. Overall, minimal variation to the Style Guide was observed; only 28 of 362 (8%) of products displaying the HSR system graphic were identified as having a technical error§ (Table1.6).

The most common technical error was that 13 products displayed a serving size as part of the HSR system graphic that was not part of the industry-agreed standard serving size range as outlined in the Style Guide,7 at the time of this assessment. Eight of these were from one manufacturer in the same category, and the serving size used was that displayed on the NIP, as determined by the manufacturer.

Figure 1.8. Number of products (n) displaying Option 1, by HSR Category, by HSR Option, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

§ This component of the assessment excludes one product displaying Option 5 as the images were incomplete in FoodTrack (i.e.: n = 362).



Figure 1.9. Proportion of products (%) displaying HSR Option 1, by optional nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

Figure 1.10. Number of products (n) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by HSR Category, by optional nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)



Figure 1.11. Proportion of products (%) displaying the optional nutrient icon, by manufacturers and retailers, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)



Table1.6. Technical errors identified when assessing consistency in implementation of the HSR system graphic with the Style Guide, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

Section of the Style Guide Number of products

Energy and nutrient icons, including %DI - %DI implemented differently to recommended guidelines 3

Energy and nutrient icons, including %DI - nutrient(s) values displayed with decimal place different to guidelines 3

Energy and nutrient icons, including %DI - value displayed on nutrient icon different to that in the NIP 2

Energy and nutrient icons, including %DI - nutrient order varies to recommended guidelines 1

Energy and nutrient icons, including %DI - nutrients displayed in different units to recommended guidelines 1

Energy and nutrient icons, including %DI - nutrient displayed as ‘<1g’ with a ‘low’ claim – cannot confirm this meets requirements of ‘low’ claim for that nutrient (<0.75 g)

1

Nominated reference measure - does not use industry agreed standard serving size (fruit and vegetable juices (9), cheese – aged and processed (1), meat – plain (1), pasta and noodles – plain (1), mueslis (1))

13

Nominated reference measure - values based on food ‘per 100 g’ as sold (i.e. uncooked) which matches NIP, intended to be eaten ‘as prepared’ (single manufacturer, pasta & noodles – plain)

4

Nominated reference measure - uses reference measure of ‘per 60g serve’ – varies to recommended reference measure for products presented as multipacks

2

Nominated reference measure - uses reference measure of ‘per 180 g serve’ – varies to recommended reference measure for products presented in single serve packages

1

Total count adds up to 31. This is because one product had four technical errors and was therefore reflected four times in Table 1.6. The majority of products (27/28) had one technical error.

There were also other observations during assessment against the Style Guide:

Thirty-five products from the same retailer, across various categories, displayed a design variation compared to the recommended HSR system graphic.

Twenty products from the same manufacturer, in the ‘Fruit and vegetable juices’ category, displayed a combination of Option 3 and Option 5 of the HSR system graphic.

One product in the ‘Fruit and vegetable juices’ category displayed a combination of Option 5 of the HSR graphic and an optional nutrient icon.



Three products by the same manufacturer within the ‘Mueslis’ category displayed an older version of the HSR system graphic, which was implemented at the time in line with an earlier version of the HSR Style Guide (not shown here).

There were 18 multipack products identified at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015):

For six of them, the HSR system graphic and the NIP reflected an average of all flavours in the packaging

For the remaining 12, the HSR system graphic reflected a single flavour in pack (i.e. the multipack contained only one flavour variant).

Two products were identified for which the manufacturer placed a sticker over one nutrient value in the HSR system graphic, with the correct information.

1.3.4 Assessment of HSR displayed on pack against that determined by the HSRC at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

The available data for the 331 products displaying a HSR system graphic, from FoodTrackTM, was entered into the HSRC and the output was compared to the HSR displayed on pack. Note this excludes products displaying Option 5 of the HSR system graphic (the energy icon only).

For 95% (314/331) of products assessed, the HSR displayed on pack matched the output from the HSRC. The remaining 17 products were from six HSR Categories: ‘Dips’ (n = 8), ‘Nut and seed bars’ (n = 4), ‘Mueslis’ (n = 2), and n= 1 for ‘Vegetarian – processed’, ‘Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals’ and ‘Cereal-based bars’.Of these 17 products, 10 displayed a HSR on pack which was 0.5 stars higher than that calculated by the HSRC, one product displayed 1.0 stars more on pack, and six products displayed 0.5 stars less on-pack than those calculated by the HSRC.

Eleven of these 17 products did not have sufficient data on pack to be able to completely determine the HSR (fibre unavailable on the NIP and/or not possible to fully quantify the FVNL values (% FVNL and % conc F+V) from the ingredients list. For the remaining six products, the HSR did not match despite all required data available on pack and able to be quantified.

There were also instances observed where either the fibre content was missing or the quantity of key ingredients was unavailable on pack, yet modelling based on similar product profiles showed these were likely to be in too small amounts to affect the overall star rating.



Chapter 2 – Area of Enquiry 2 Consumer awareness and ability to use the HSR system correctly2.1 Chapter summary2.1.1 Awareness of the HSR system

Unprompted awareness of the HSR system has increased from 3% in April 2015 to 11% in September 2015.

Unprompted awareness was higher among females, persons aged under 35, those with an annual household income of more than $50,000 or with a body mass index (BMI) in the healthy weight range.

Likewise, prompted awareness of the HSR system has also increased significantly from 33% in April 2015 to 53% in September 2015.

Prompted awareness was higher among persons aged under 35, those with an annual household income of more than $50,000 or with a BMI in the healthy weight range.

2.1.2 Understanding what the HSR system represents Close to two in three were aware that the HSR system is a rating scale of the

healthiness of a food product or a comparison between two products in the same category.

Females, persons aged 35 and over or those with an annual household income of more than $50,000 were more likely to know what the HSR system represents than their counterparts.

Close to 90% of respondents understand that a product with one star means that it is less healthy compared to a product with more stars, and likewise, that a product with five stars represents the healthiest choice.

2.1.3 Use of the HSR system Of those aware of the HSR system, more than two in five reported that they have

purchased a product with the HSR system graphic in the past three months. The latest result is significantly higher compared to April 2015, where only 8% reported that they had purchased a product with the HSR system graphic on it.

Males, persons aged under 55, those with a BMI in the healthy weight/overweight range or an annual household income of more than $50,000 were more likely to report that they had purchased a product in the past three months with the HSR system graphic.

More than one in two who had purchased a product with the HSR system reported that the rating scale had influenced their purchasing decision. In fact,



37% reported that the rating scale influenced them to purchase a product with more stars that they normally wouldn’t purchase.

2.1.4 Perceptions and attitudes towards the HSR system Compared to April 2015, the proportion of people who reported they trust the HSR

system has increased from 38% to more than 51% in September 2015. Similarly, more than 70% reported that the HSR system is easy to use and easy to understand, both significantly up compared to the April 2015 result.

Notably, more than one in two see the HSR system as either relevant to their family or relevant to them personally.

Option 1 (refer to key below) of the HSR system graphic was the most preferred Option; it was reported to be the easiest to understand, the easiest to recognise and the Option perceived to provide sufficient information.

2.2 MethodologyOutcomes for AoE 2 were specifically divided into four key areas, as per the Framework:

1. Awareness (unprompted and prompted) of the HSR system

2. Consumer knowledge and understanding of the HSR system, including what the HSR system graphic represents and what it means on product packaging

3. Whether consumers are utilising the HSR system accurately and effectively

4. The level of trust, reliability and credibility consumers have in the HSR system.

These four key areas were measured at the total population level and by agreed select population groups, age, household income, BMI, gender and language spoken at home.

2.2.1 Survey design and sampleIn September 2015, the Heart Foundation conducted an online survey with a sample of 2,036 Australians. This was ‘Wave 1’ of the survey, and will be repeated at two more time points in 2016 (Wave 2 in February 2016 and Wave 3 in July 2016). The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix 4.



To be eligible to participate in the survey, participants were required to be the main or shared grocery buyer in their household and be 18 years of age or over.

The sample of consumers was based on a cross-section of Australian adults, and was stratified to include sufficient sample sizes by:

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/female)

BMI (underweight/normal weight, overweight or obese)

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

location (respondent resides in metropolitan area or in regional/rural area).

2.2.2 Online panel partnerThe survey was conducted in September 2015, in conjunction with the market research company Research Now®, and the sample was obtained through their online research panel. Research Now operates in 38 countries and has more than 6 million panellists internationally. They are one of the leading online sampling and data collection organisations in Australia and worldwide.

2.2.3 Survey questionnaireThe initial two consumer surveys of the HSR system, conducted in September 2014 and April 2015 were undertaken by the market research group, Pollinate. These surveys evaluated the roll-out of the HSR system and its impact on consumers.13,14

For the current survey, changes were made to the original questionnaire used in the first two surveys conducted by Pollinate. The overall length and the breadth of the questionnaire used in the current survey was expanded, with changes including:

broadening the questions on unprompted logos/labels

increasing the number of other food logos/labels included for testing of prompted awareness

increasing the number of factors influencing purchasing decision

new questions relating to what consumers believe the HSR system represents, how it is calculated and what the rating means on a product

new questions for those who have used the HSR system, with particular focus on actual and intended behaviours

a new question on the level of importance consumers place on the HSR across food products

broadening the number of questions on trust, reliability and credibility of the HSR system



a question on whether the HSR system is meeting the needs of consumers.

These changes to the questionnaire have limited the direct comparability of the current survey with the two previous surveys conducted by Pollinate, however, where directly comparable, time series data and/or analysis has been included in the reporting.

The questionnaire used in this survey consisted of seven main sections:

Demographics- Gender, age, household income, household structure, educational attainment,

activity status, Indigenous status and language spoken at home.

Awareness of food logos- Unprompted and prompted awareness of the HSR system graphic and other

food logos.

Purchasing behaviours– Main influencing factor when purchasing products at the supermarket,

frequency of visits to supermarket and average spend, supermarkets visited.

Understanding of the HSR system- What the HSR system graphic on a product means, how the number of stars

is determined, comparison of a product with one and five stars.

Use of the HSR system- Whether a particular food with the HSR system graphic has been purchased

and whether the HSR system graphic influenced the purchasing decision.

Perceptions towards the HSR system- Whether the HSR system is credible, trusted, easy to use, easy to understand

and overall confidence in the HSR system.

General health and food attitudes and behaviours- Concern about healthiness of food and diet, change in dieting behaviour, daily

intake of fruit and vegetables and physical activity levels.



2.2.4 Sample characteristicsTable 2.1outlines the sample characteristics of the population surveyed for Wave 1.

Table 2.1. Sample characteristics of the population surveyed for Wave 1

Characteristic Respondents (%)Gender - Male 51Gender - Female 49Age group - Under 35 30Age group - 35 to 54 32Age group - 55 or over 38Location - Metropolitan 72Location - Regional/rural 28Annual household income - Below $50,000 36Annual household income - Between $50,000 to $99,999 37Annual household income -$100,0000 or higher 27Speak language other than English - Yes 18Speak language other than English - No 81Household structure - Children in the household 32Household structure - No children in the household 68Indigenous status - Indigenous 2Indigenous status - Non-Indigenous 98

2.2.5 Data analysisFor AoE 2, data was analysed using the statistical software package, SPSS (version 23), with independent samples t-tests used to determine whether the means of two groups were statistically different from each other (significance level set at p<0.05). Where relevant, the survey population was grouped by gender, age, BMI, annual household income, place of residence, Indigenous status and language spoken at home, for analysis.

The survey conducted for AoE 2 was based on a sample of Australian adults, i.e. not a census population, as such some level of error was inherent in the results. This margin of error was quantified statistically such that, with 95% confidence, a given range contains the true result at a population level; the error margin was 2.2%, i.e. with 95% confidence, a result, plus or minus the error margin (i.e. 50% ± 2.2%), contains the true result at the population level.



2.3 Results2.3.1 Section A: General supermarket shoppingMain influence when choosing between two productsWhen purchasing food at the supermarket and choosing between two similar products, price was by far the most common factor that influenced purchasing decisions (Figure A1). This was followed by quality of the product and personal or family preference.

One in seven respondents reported that the nutritional value or the healthiness of a product primarily influences their purchasing decisions. However, females were more likely than males to focus on the healthiness of a product or its nutritional value (18% ct 12%, p=0.01). Although respondents with an annual household income of less than $50,000 were more likely to focus on price, those with an annual income of more than $100,000 were more likely to be influenced by product quality.

Frequency of visits to the supermarketThe majority of respondents reported that they visit a supermarket at least once a week to do their grocery shopping. Of those who grocery shop at least once a week, more than one in two reported they shop several times a week or every day.

Respondents with an annual household income of more than $50,000 were significantly more likely to visit the supermarket at least several times a week compared to those with an annual income of less than $50,000 (52% ct 45%, p=0.01).

Table A1.1. On average, how often do you visit a supermarket to do your grocery shopping? (Sample: 2,036)

Frequency Respondents (%) Sep-15

Everyday 3

Several times a week 47

Once a week 42

Once a fortnight 7

Once a month 1

Supermarkets visited in the past monthWoolworths and Coles were the supermarkets most visited by respondents; close to all respondents (96%) reported that they had visited a Woolworth and/or Coles supermarket in the past month (Figure A 2).

Average spend per visit to the supermarketThe average expenditure per visit to the supermarket varied greatly. For those who reported visiting a supermarket ‘at least once a week’, almost two-thirds (63%) stated that they spend less than $100 per visit. More than two in five (46%) stated they spend between $100 and $199 and a further 13% stated they spend $200 or more.



Respondents with an annual household income of more than $100,000 were significantly more likely to spend at least $100 per visit to the supermarket compared to those with an annual household income of less than $50,000 (44% ct 29%, p<0.001).

Table A1. 2. On average, how much do you spend in one visit to the supermarket? (Sample: 2,036)

Spend Respondents (%) Sep-15Under $20 3$20 to $49 27$50 to $99 31$100 to $149 22$150 to $199 8$200 or more 5

It varies 4

Comparing the healthiness of productsClose to three in five respondents stated that they ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ compare the healthiness of products when grocery shopping, while an additional 30% reported that they sometimes compare the healthiness of products (Figure A 3).

More than 60% of females reported that they ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ compare how healthy products are, significantly higher than males, at 50% (p<0.01). Those with a university education were more likely to ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ compare the healthiness of food products compared to those with a lower level of education (63% ct 49%, p<0.01).

Figure A 1. When buying food at the supermarket, what is the main thing that influences your choice between two similar products? (Sample: 2,036)



Figure A 2. Which supermarkets have you visited in the past month? (Sample: 2,036)

Figure A 3. When choosing a new food during grocery shopping, how often do you compare how healthy products are? (Sample: 2,036)

Use of the nutrition information panelMore than two in five respondents reported that they look at the NIP on ‘all’ or ‘most’ food products, when at the supermarket (Figure A 4). Significantly, more females than males stated that they look at the nutrition information panel on ‘all’ or ‘most’ food products, when at the supermarket (44% ct 39%; p<0.02).

Respondents in the 35 to 54 year age group were much more likely to report they look at the nutrition information panel on ‘all’ or ‘most’ food products (74%), compared to their younger (18 to 34, 49%) or older counterparts (55 years +, 39%). Those with a university education were more likely to look at the nutrition information panel on ‘all’ or ‘most’ food products compared to those without a university education (48% ct 34%, p<0.01).



2.3.2 Section B: Awareness of food logosUnprompted awareness of food logosRespondents were asked about their awareness of different logos that help customers choose the food they buy in the supermarket (Figure B 1).

Apart from the ‘Heart Foundation Tick’ logo, which was mentioned by 40% of respondents, awareness of such front-of-pack logos/logos was relatively low. ‘Australian Made’ was mentioned by 15% of respondents, followed by the ‘Health Star Rating’ system graphic at 11%.

Almost two in five respondents were ‘Unsure’ what front- of-pack logos/logos exist to help consumers choose the food they buy at the supermarket.

Unprompted awareness of the HSR system has more than tripled since April 2015, when only 3% nominated the HSR system graphic as a logo.

Unprompted awareness of the HSR system**

Age group

Unprompted awareness of the HSR system was significantly higher among respondents under the age of 35, as they are nearly twice as likely to mention the HSR system compared to those aged 55 and over.

Table B 1. Age group

Age group Respondents (%)Under 35 15.9Between 35 to 54 10.555 or over 8.7

Gender

Unprompted awareness of the HSR system was more widespread among females than males.

Table B 2. Gender

Gender Respondents (%)Females 14.7Males 8.4

Household income

** Tables B1 to B8: 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? Sample: Age Group – Under 35 (n=610), 35 to 54 (n=655), 55 and over (n=771). Gender – Females (n=989), Males (n=1,047). Gross Household Income – <$50,000 (n=636), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=652), $100,000 or more (n=471). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=731), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=588), ≥ 30.0 (n=395). Indigenous status – Indigenous (n=45), Non-Indigenous (n=1,942). Language – English only (n=1,651), Language other than English (n=358). Location Metro (n=1,467), Regional / Rural (n=568). Children at Home – With Children (n=661), No Children (n=1,335).



Respondents with a household income of at least $50,000 per annum were significantly more likely to be aware of the HSR system, compared to respondents with an annual income of less than $50,000. Unprompted awareness was relatively consistent for any income level above $50,000.

Table B 3. Household income

Gross Household Respondents (%)<$50,000 6.6$50,000 to $99,999 14.1$100,000 or more 13.4

BMI

Unprompted awareness of the HSR system was negatively correlated with BMI; respondents within the normal or underweight range were significantly more likely to be aware of the HSR system than those who are obese.

Table B 4. BMI

BMI Respondents (%)<25.0 13.725.0 to 29.9 10.4≥30.0 8.1

Indigenous status††

Respondents of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background were significantly less likely to have nominated the HSR system graphic as a food logo than non-Indigenous Australians.

Table B 5. Indigenous status

Indigenous status Respondents (%)Indigenous 4.4Non-Indigenous 11.7

†† Caution in using this result due to small sample size.



Figure A 4. On average, when at the supermarket, do you look at the nutrition information panel on…? (Sample: 2,036)

Figure B 1. 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? (Sample: 2,036)



Language spoken at home

The level of unprompted awareness of the HSR system was not influenced by whether a person speaks only English at home or a language other than English.

Table B 6. Language

Languages Respondents (%)English only 11.4Other than English 10.6

Location – metropolitan vs regional/rural

Respondents living in metropolitan areas were significantly more likely to nominate the HSR system graphic as a food logo than those living in regional or rural areas of Australia.

Table B 7. Residential location

Location Respondents (%)Metro 12.5Regional/rural 8.8

Household structure – children

Respondents who have children living at home were slightly more likely to have nominated the HSR system graphic as a food logo than those without children.

Table B 8. Children at home

Children at home Respondents (%)With children 13.0No children 10.7

Prompted awareness of logos on packaging

Compared to prompted awareness of other logos on food packaging, the HSR system graphic was the eleventh most recognised logo from the selected list (Figure B 2).



Prompted awareness of the HSR system‡‡

In just a 12-month period, prompted awareness of the HSR system has increased four-fold. More than one in two respondents surveyed in September 2015 were aware of the HSR system (Figure B 3).

Age group

Respondents under the age of 35 were significantly more likely to be aware of the HSR system than those aged 35 or over (p<0.001).

Table B 9. Age group


Gender

Although not statistically significant, females were slightly more likely than males to be aware of the HSR system.

Table B 10. Gender


Household income

Similar to unprompted awareness, respondents with a household income of less than $50,000 were the least likely to be aware of the HSR system. Awareness of the system was highest among respondents with an annual income of $50,000 to $99,999.

Table B 11. Household income

Gross household income Respondents (%)<$50,000 48.7$50,000 to $99,999 58.7$100,000 or more 53.5

BMI

‡‡ Tables B9 to B16: Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? Sample: Age Group – Under 35 (n=610), 35 to 54 (n=655), 55 and over (n=771). Gender – Females (n=989), Males (n=1,047). Gross Household Income – <$50,000 (n=636), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=652), $100,000 or more (n=471). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=731), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=588), ≥ 30.0 (n=395). Indigenous status – Indigenous (n=45), Non-Indigenous (n=1,942). Language – English only (n=1,651), Language other than English (n=358). Location – Metro (n=1,467), Regional/rural (n=568). Children at Home – With Children (n=661), No Children (n=1,335).



Awareness of the HSR system was highest among respondents who have a BMI <25. There was a marginal difference in awareness among respondents who are overweight or obese (BMI >25).

Table B 12. BMI


Figure B 2. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging? (Sample: 2,036)

Figure B 3. Prompted awareness of the HSR system over time (Sample: 2,036)



Indigenous status§§

Respondents of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background were more likely to be aware of the HSR system graphic as a food logo than non-Indigenous Australians.

Table B 13. Indigenous status

Indigenous status Respondents (%)Indigenous 62.2Non-Indigenous 53.0


Respondents who speak a language other than English at home were slightly more likely to be aware of the HSR system.

Table B 14. Language

Language Respondents (%)English only 52.8Other than English 55.0


Respondents living in metropolitan areas were slightly more likely to be aware of the HSR system than those living in regional or rural areas of Australia.

Table B 15. Residential location



Respondents who have children living at home were more likely to be aware of the HSR system than those without children.

Table B 16. Children at home


§§ Caution in using this result, due to small sample size.



2.3.3 Section C: Knowledge and understanding of the Health Star Rating systemUnderstanding of what the HSR system meansFor respondents who were aware of the HSR system (n = 1,084), around two in three were aware that the HSR system is a rating scale of the healthiness of a food product or a comparison between two products in the same category (Figure C 1).

However, one in 10 respondents who were aware of the HSR system were unsure about what the HSR system graphic represents on the packaging of a food product.

Figure C 1. When the HSR system graphic is on the packaging of food, what do you think it means? (Sample: 1,084)

Knowledge of what the HSR system represents***

Age group

While as a proportion of respondents under the age of 35 were most likely to be aware of the HSR system compared to those aged 35 and over, they were however less likely to know that the HSR system is a comparative rating scale of the healthiness of food.

Table C 1. Age group


*** Tables C1 to C7: When the HSR system is on the packaging of food, what do you think it means? Sample: Age Group – Under 35 (n=389), 35 to 54 (n=331), 55 and over (n=364). Gender – Females (n=547), Males (n=537). Gross Household Income – <$50,000 (n=310), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=383), $100,000 or more (n=252). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=418), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=300), ≥ 30.0 (n=195). Language – English only (n=872), Language other than English (n=197). Location – Metro (n=798), Regional/rural (n=286). Children at Home – With Children (n=382), No Children (n=685).



Gender

Not only were females more likely than males to be aware of the HSR system, females were also more likely than males to know what the HSR system represents.

Table C2. Gender

Gender Respondents (%)Female 68.9%Males 61.8%

Household income

Respondents with an annual household income of less than $50,000 were the least likely to be aware of the HSR system, and if they were aware of the HSR system, they were least likely to know what the rating system represents.

Table C3. Household income

Income Respondents (%)<$50,000 61.9$50,000 to $99,999 66.1$100,000 or more 67.5

BMI

Despite respondents with a BMI of at least 25 being less likely to be aware of the HSR system, they were more likely to know what it represents on food packaging compared to those with a BMI of <25.

Table C4. BMI



Respondents who speak English only at home were significantly more likely to know that the HSR system is a comparative rating scale of the healthiness of food.

Table C5. Language





A respondent’s place of residence has little influence on whether they know what the HSR system represents on a food product.

Table C6. Residential location



There was minimal difference in the level of knowledge of the HSR system between respondents who have children living at home and those without any children in the household.

Table C7. Children at home


Understanding about how the number of stars on a product is determined

Respondents were asked their opinion about how the number of stars on a product is determined (Figure C2). Almost one-third of respondents believed the number of stars is determined through nutritional analysis. However, one in three were unsure about how the number of stars on a product is determined.

Figure C2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product determined? (Sample: 1,084)

Statements about the HSR systemThe majority of respondents believed the HSR system makes it easier to identify the healthier option within a category (74%) and to compare products that are in the same



category in the supermarket (73%). Both results are on par with the earlier results from April 2015.

Seven in 10 respondents agreed the HSR system helps them think about the healthiness of food, and approximately three in five stated the system helps them make decisions about which foods to buy (61%) and makes them want to buy healthier products (58%).

Just over one-quarter of respondents (28%) believed the HSR system graphic is just another logo that makes shopping more confusing, while a further 30% sit on the fence, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this statement.

Using the HSR systemRespondents were asked how they would use the HSR system (Figure C3). More than 60% of respondents reported that they would use the HSR system to either compare the healthiness of products, to select the product that is healthier or use it as a quick reference guide. However, more than one-third of respondents were either unsure how they would use the HSR system or reported that they wouldn’t use it at all.

Understanding what one star or five stars meansRespondents were asked about their understanding of what one star on a product means (Figure C4).

More than three-quarters reported they believe that one star represents an unhealthy product or a product of little nutritious value. One in 10 reported they believe one star signifies a product that is less healthy than products with more stars.

Respondents were also asked what they believe five stars on a product means (Figure C5). The majority (88%) stated it represents a product that is the ‘the healthiest choice’ and one that is ‘good for your health’.

Table C8. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)

Statement Strongly agree/agree (%)Apr-15

Strongly agree/agree (%)Sep-15

Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option within a category

73 74

Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in the same category in the supermarket

74 73

Helps me think about the healthiness of food 73 71Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option across all categories

n/a 68

Helps me make decisions about which foods to buy 67 61Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in the different categories in the supermarket

51 58

Makes me want to buy healthier products 62 57



Statement Strongly agree/agree (%)Apr-15

Strongly agree/agree (%)Sep-15

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

24 28

Figure C3. How would you use the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)

Figure C4. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084)



Figure C5. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means? (Sample: 1,084)

Statements about HSR system – a product with more stars…Respondents were asked a series of statements about products with the HSR system graphic (Table C9).

In comparison with products that have less stars, more than three-quarters of respondents agreed a product with more stars is a healthier option.

Almost one-third of respondents (30%) were uncertain (neither agreed nor disagreed or were unsure) whether a product with more stars is healthy. Similarly, there was some ambiguity around whether a product with more stars was more expensive than a product with less stars.

More than half of the respondents disagreed with the statement that you can consume a product with more stars ‘as much as you like’ compared to a product with less stars, with more than one-quarter ‘uncertain’. Similarly, almost half disagreed that a product with more stars does not taste as good as a product with less stars. Again, a proportion of respondents were ambiguous to whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement.

The HSR system graphic was displayed in the five different options available. Respondents were asked which they believe is easiest to understand (Table C10), to recognise (Table C11) and which provides sufficient information (Table C12).

Easiest to understandMore than half of respondents choose the most detailed HSR system graphic (Option 1) with additional nutrient information as the ‘easiest to understand’, followed by the next most detailed HSR system graphic (Option 2, 21%) and the single circle HSR system graphic (Option 4, 20%).



Table C9. How strongly do you agree or disagree that a product with more stars means? (Sample: 1,084)

StatementStrongly agree/ Agree (%) Neither (%)

Strongly disagree/ Disagree (%)

Unsure (%)

It is a healthier option compared to a similar food product with less stars

78 16 5 1

It is a healthier option compared to a food product with less stars 76 16 6 2

It is healthy 63 28 8 2It is more expensive than a product with less stars 26 39 30 5

You can eat it as much as you like compared to a product with less stars

17 26 55 2

It does not taste as good as a product with less stars 14 33 49 4

Table C10. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe is the easiest to understand? (Sample: 1,084)

HSR Graphic Respondents %

52

21

20

5

1

Easiest to recogniseSimilar to ease of understanding, the HSR system graphic with the most detailed nutrient information (Option 1) was also selected by respondents as the easiest to recognise. Almost one-third believed the single circle HSR system graphic (Option 4) was the easiest to recognise.



Table C11. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe is the easiest to recognise? (Sample: 1,084)


45

32

16

7

1

Provides sufficient informationAlong with being the easiest to understand and recognise, the HSR system graphic with the most detailed nutrient information (Option 1) was the favourite, most commonly identified as providing sufficient information, at 62%.

Table C12. The HSR system graphic can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe provides sufficient information? (Sample: 1,084)


62

21

11

5

1



Preferred optionNot surprisingly, the HSR system graphic voted easiest to understand, easiest to recognise and provides the most sufficient information (Option 1), was chosen as the preferred choice by a significant proportion of respondents (57%).

The other HSR system graphic that also provides additional information was selected by one in five as their most preferred option (Option 2).

Reasons for preferenceProviding detailed information and ease of understanding were the two most common reasons for preference (Figure C6). More than two in three respondents who selected the two HSR system graphics that include nutrient information (Option 1, Option 2) reported that their selection was based on the HSR system graphic providing detailed information.

Nine in 10 respondents who selected the HSR system graphic with just the single circle graphic (Option 4) reported that it was their preferred choice as it was easy to understand or simple.

Table C13. Overall, please select the style you prefer the most? (Sample: 1,084)


57

21

16

5

1



Figure C6. Why do you prefer that option? (Sample: 1,084)

2.3.4 Section D. Purchasing behaviours†††

Of those aware of the HSR system, more than two in five reported that in the past three months they had purchased a product with the HSR system graphic.

Even though there were no significant differences by age, educational attainment and annual household income range, males were significantly more likely than females to have purchased a product displaying the HSR system graphic (49% ct 41%; p=0.008).

Those who spoke a language other than English at home were more likely to have purchased a product displaying the HSR system graphic than those who spoke English only at home (56% ct 42%; p=0.000).

Even though not significant, those with a BMI in the normal weight range (<25) were more likely to have purchased a product that had the HSR system than those with a BMI in the overweight or obese range (≥25).

Table D1. In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the HSR system graphic? (Sample: 1,084)

Response Respondents (%) Apr-15 Respondents (%) Sep-15Yes 8 45No 41 10Unsure 51 45

††† Tables D2 to D8: In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the HSR system? Sample: Age Group – Under 35 (n=389), 35 to 54 (n=331), 55 and over (n=364). Gender – Females (n=547), Males (n=537). Gross Household Income – <$50,000 (n=310), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=383), $100,000 or more (n=252). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=418), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=300), ≥ 30.0 (n=195). Language – English only (n=872), Language other than English (n=197). Location – Metro (n=798), Regional/rural (n=286). Children at Home – With Children (n=382), No Children (n=685).



Table D2. Age group


Table D3. BMI


Table D4. Household income


Table D5. Gender


Table D6. Language


Table D7. Children at home


Table D8. Residential location


HSR system influenced choiceMore than half of respondents reported having the HSR system graphic on a product influenced their purchasing choice.



Those with a BMI in the healthy range were significantly more likely to state that the HSR system on a product influenced their purchasing choice than those with a BMI in the overweight and obese range (61% ct 51%; p=0.04).

Similar to purchasing a product with the HSR system graphic, those who were born overseas were more likely to state having the HSR system graphic on the product influenced their purchasing choice (53% ct 63%; p=0.04).

Similarly, those who spoke a language other than English at home were more likely to state the HSR system influenced their purchasing choice than those who spoke English only at home (77% ct 50%; p<0.001).

Table D9. Did the HSR system graphic on the product influence your choice? (Sample: 489)

Response Respondents (%) Sep-15Yes 56No 37Unsure 7

How the HSR system influenced choiceMore than two in five respondents who reported the HSR system influenced their purchasing choice stated it confirmed they should buy their usual products. More than one-third of respondents chose a product with more stars that they don’t often buy.

Table D10. How did it influence your choice? (Sample: 273)

Response Respondents (%) Sep-15It confirmed I should buy my usual product 45I chose a product with more stars that I don’t often buy 37

I chose a product with more stars that I’ve never tried before 11

I chose not to buy my usual product because it had fewer stars than other options 7

Reasons why the HSR system didn’t influence choiceFor those who stated the HSR system did not influence their purchasing choice, more than half stated it was because they choose their preferred choice.

Other reasons why they were confident in choosing healthy food, issues surrounding the HSR system and there are more important factors when shopping (Figure D1).

Continue to buy the productNine in 10 respondents who reported choosing a product (that they don’t often buy or have never tried before) because it had more stars, stated they have continued or will continue to buy the products in the future.



Table D11. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product? (Sample: 273)


Likelihood of the HSR system influencing choices in the futureAlmost three-quarters of those who purchased a product with the HSR system graphic reported the rating system will likely influence the choices they make in the future when buying food.

Males were more likely than females to state the HSR system will influence the choices they make in the future when buying food (74% ct 68%, p=0.03).

Those who spoke a language other than English at home were more likely to state the HSR system will influence the choices they make in the future when buying food, compared to those who only speak English at home (83% ct 69%; p=0.001).

Figure D1. Why didn’t the HSR system influence your choice? (Sample: 180)

Table D12. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product? (Sample: 1,084)

Response Respondents (%) Sep-15Very likely 19Likely 53Unlikely 14Very unlikely 7Unsure 7



HSR system graphic comparison – which is the healthier option?For the first two scenarios, nine in 10 respondents were able to choose the healthier option. In scenario three, when the information icons were added, respondents were slightly less likely to choose the healthier option.

Table D 13. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)

Scenario 1 Respondents (%) Apr-15

Respondents (%) Sep-15

3 5

90 91These are the same 7 5




4 3





11 10




Table D16. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)



6 9

6 12

These are the same 87 78

Table D17. Please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair? (Sample: 1,084)



67 56

8 13

These are the same 25 31

Foods and/or beverages purchased in the supermarket displaying the HSR system graphicThe most popular food and/or beverages purchased in the supermarket displaying the HSR system graphic was breakfast cereals, with almost three in five respondents reported that they purchased breakfast cereals with the HSR system graphic. This was followed by ‘yoghurt and dairy desserts’ (34%), ‘cereal bars, nut/seed bars/ fruit bars’ (33%) and ‘margarines and spreads (including butter)’ (33%).



Figure D2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in the supermarket which had the HSR system graphic on them? (Sample: 507)



Foods and/or beverages on which it is important to display the HSR system graphicBreakfast cereals were most commonly identified as important food products to display the HSR system graphic, at 73%. This was followed by ‘cereal bars, nut/seed bars/fruit bars’ (67%) and ‘ready meals/meal kits’ (64%) and ‘yoghurt and dairy desserts’ (63%).

Figure D3. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is important to have the HSR system graphic on them? (Sample: 1,084)

2.3.5 Section E. Advertising awarenessAwareness of HSR system advertisingRespondents were asked if they had seen, heard or read any advertising or promotions about the HSR system in the last three months. Only one in five respondents reported that they were aware of any advertising or promotions related to the HSR system.

Respondents under the age of 55 were significantly more likely to be aware of HSR system advertising or promotions than those aged 55 and over (24% ct 12%, p<0.0001).

Those with a university education were more likely to be aware of the advertising or promotions than respondents without a university education (23% ct 17%; p=0.014).

Those who spoke a language other than English at home were more likely to be aware of HSR system advertising or promotional activity compared to those who only speak English at home (33% ct 17%; p<0.0001).



Table E1. In the last three months, do you remember seeing, hearing or reading any advertising or promotions about the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)


Source of HSR system advertisingWhen asked where they had seen, heard or read the advertising, half of respondents reported they saw a ‘TV advertisement’ about the HSR system. This was followed by ‘on food packaging’ and ‘in a supermarket catalogue’.

Organisation that conducted the advertisingMore than half of respondents reported that they were ‘unsure’ who was responsible for the advertising or promotion in relation to the HSR system that they had seen or heard (Figure E2). Other responses include ‘product/brand specified’, ‘supermarket chain’ and the ‘Government’.

Product advertised or promotedAlmost two in five respondents reported that they were ‘unsure’ what product or products were being advertised (Figure E3). Breakfast cereals were most commonly mentioned by respondents, at 26%.

Figure E1. Where had you seen or heard about the HSR system? (Sample: 217)

Influence advertising had on purchasing a product with the HSR system graphic



Almost half of respondents stated that they purchased a product with the HSR system graphic that they wouldn’t normally buy, as a result of seeing, hearing or reading the advertisement.

Table E2. After seeing or hearing this advertising or promotion(s) for products with a HSR system graphic, did it influence you to buy a product or products you normally wouldn’t buy? (Sample: 217)


Figure E2. Which organisation or company did the advertising or promotion(s)? (Sample: 217)

Figure E3. What product or products were being advertised or promoted? (Sample: 217)



2.3.6 Section F: Attitudes and perceptions about the HSR systemStatements about the HSR system – perceptions and attitudesRespondents were provided with a series of statements about the HSR system. The majority of respondents (almost three-quarters) agreed that the HSR system is ‘easy to use’ and ‘easy to understand’.

Even though around three in five respondents agreed that the HSR system ‘makes choosing food easier’ and is personally relevant to them and their family, some level of ambiguity exists with just over one-quarter neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the statements.

Similarly, approximately one in three respondents were uncertain whether the HSR system is credible, reliable, trustworthy, open and transparent.

Table F1. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system…? (Sample: 1,084)

Statement Strongly agree/ Agree (%) Sep-14

Strongly agree/ Agree (%) Apr-15

Strongly agree/ Agree (%) Sep-15

Is a system I trust 34 38 51Is easy to understand 67 59 72Is easy to use n/a 58 72


Statement Strongly agree/ Agree (%)

Neither (%)


Unsure (%)

Is relevant to my family 60 27 12 1Is personally relevant to me 58 28 13 1


Statement Strongly agree/Agree (%)

Neither (%)


Unsure (%)

Makes choosing food easier 62 27 10 1Is a credible system 57 29 11 3Is a reliable system 54 32 10 3Is open and transparent 50 35 12 3Is hard to see on the package 26 35 36 2Is confusing 19 27 53 1Has a poor reputation 17 34 42 6



Trust in the HSR system‡‡‡

Respondents aged 55 or over were significantly less likely than those under the age of 55 to trust the HSR system.

Similarly, respondents with a household income of less than $50,000 per annum, those with a BMI of 30 or higher or those who speak English only at home were also significantly less likely to trust the HSR system.

Table F4. Age group


Table F5. BMI

BMI Respondents (%)

<25.0 48.625.0 to 29.9 45.3≥30.0 38.5

Table F6. Household Income


Table F7. Children at home


Table F8. Language


‡‡‡ Tables F4 to F10: How strongly do you agree or disagree that the HSR system is a system that I trust? Sample: Age Group - Under 35 (n=389), 35 to 54 (n=331), 55 and over (n=364). Gender – Females (n=547), Males (n=537). Gross Household Income - <$50,000 (n=310), $50,000 to $99,999 (n=383), $100,000 or more (n=252). Body Mass Index – Less than 25.0 (n=418), 25.0 to 29.9 (n=300), ≥ 30.0 (n=195). Language – English only (n=872), Language other than English (n=197). Location – Metro (n=798), Regional / Rural (n=286). Children at Home – With Children (n=382), No Children (n=685).



Table F9. Gender


Table F10. Residential location


Level of confidence in the HSR systemThree in five respondents who were aware of the HSR system reported they have a ‘high’ or ‘somewhat high’ level of confidence in the rating system (Figure F1). There was no real difference by gender and age categories, BMI range, educational attainment or household income status.

Those who speak a language other than English at home were significantly more likely to have a high or somewhat high level of confidence in the HSR system than those who speak English only at home (72% ct 57%; p=0.001).

Figure F1. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in the HSR system? (Sample: 1,084)

2.3.7 Section G: Health attitudes and behavioursConcern about the healthiness of food purchasedAlmost two in five respondents reported they were ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ concerned about the healthiness of the food they buy. Older respondents (55 years and over) were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to report they were ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ concerned (44% ct 31%; p=<0.0001).

Females were markedly more likely than males to be concerned about the healthiness of food they buy (43% ct 33%; p=0.005).



Those with a university education were significantly more likely to be concerned with the healthiness of the food they purchase compared to those without a university education (42% ct 34%; p=0.0002).

There was no significant difference between BMI range, annual household income, language spoken at home and whether born in Australia or overseas.

Respondents aware of the HSR system were significantly more likely to be ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ concerned about their health, but there was very little difference between respondents who purchased products with the HSR system graphic or not, and whether they are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ concerned about their health.

Table G1. In general, thinking about all the food you buy, how concerned are you about how healthy the food is for you? (Sample: 2,036)

Response Respondents (%) Sep-15Extremely concerned 13Very concerned 26Moderately concerned 37A little concerned 20Not at all concerned 4Unsure 1

Perceived healthiness of dietAlmost two-thirds of respondents perceived their diet to be ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’. Almost one-third of respondents (31%) were uncertain or unsure whether their diet is ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’. Older respondents (55 years and over) were more likely to perceive their diet as ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’ compared to younger respondents (18 to 34 years) (74% ct 57%; p<0.0001). Respondents with a BMI in the normal weight range were significantly more likely than those with a BMI in the overweight or obese range to perceive their diet as ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’ (74% ct 60%; p<0.0001).

Those with a university education were significantly more likely than those without one to perceive their diet as ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’ (68% ct 61%; p=0.001).

Respondents aware of the HSR system and those who reported purchasing products with the HSR system graphic were significantly more likely to report that their diet is either ‘healthy’ or ‘very healthy’.

Table G2. Thinking about your diet, would you say that what you usually eat is? (Sample: 2,036)

Statement Respondents (%) Sep-15Very healthy 8Healthy 56Neither healthy nor unhealthy 30Unhealthy 4Very unhealthy 1



Statement Respondents (%) Sep-15Unsure 1

Changes to diet over the last six monthsJust below two in five respondents made changes to their diet over the last six months.

Females were significantly more likely to report having made changes to their diet over the last six months compared to males (44% ct 35%; p<0.0001). Older respondents (aged 55 years and over) were significantly more likely to report having made changes to their diet over the last six months than their younger counterparts (48% ct 32%; p<0.0001).

No significant differences existed between socioeconomic status, language spoken at home and BMI range.

Respondents aware of the HSR system and those who had purchased products with the HSR system graphic were significantly more likely to report that they had made changes to their diet in the past six months (49% ct 32%, p<.001).

Table G3. Over the past six months, have you made any changes to your diet? (Sample: 2,036)


Type of changes made to dietWhen asked what changes they made to their diet, the three most common changes include changing the types of food they eat (67%), changing the amount of food they eat (57%) and excluding/cutting out types of food from their diet (43%).

Figure G1. Which of the following changes have you made in the past six months to your diet? (Sample: 794)



Figure G 2. For which of the following reasons did you make changes to your diet? (Sample: 794)

Reasons for making changes to dietAlmost two-thirds of respondents stated they made changes to their diet ‘to improve their physical health’. Three in five respondents stated they made changes to their diet ‘to lose weight’ and almost half of respondents changed their diet ‘to feel better’.

Perceived overall healthMore than one-third of respondents perceived their overall health to be ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’, with a further 42% perceiving their overall health as ‘good’. In contrast, close to one-quarter perceived their health to be ‘fair’ or ‘poor’.

There were no notable differences within age and gender categories and perceived health. Those with a BMI in the normal weight range were significantly more likely than

those with a BMI in the overweight or obese range to perceive their overall health as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ (48% ct 29%; p<0.001).

More than two in five respondents (44%) with an annual household income of $100,000 or more perceived their overall health as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’, compared to 30% of those with a lower household income (p<0.001). Similarly, more than two in five respondents with a university education perceived their overall health as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’, compared to 30% of those with a lower education level (p<0.001). Respondents aware of the HSR system and those who had purchased products displaying the HSR system graphic were significantly more likely to perceive their overall health to be ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ (46% ct 32%, p<.001).



Table G4. In general, would you say your overall health is? (Sample: 2,036)

Response Respondents (%) Sep-15

Excellent 6Very good 30Good 42Fair 18Poor 4

Physical activity levelsSufficient physical activity for Australians 18 years and older was measured against the guidelines recommending 150 minutes from five or more sessions per week.15

Just below one-quarter of respondents reported undertaking at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week.

Those with a BMI in the normal weight range were most likely to meet the recommended guidelines for moderate to vigorous activity, considerably higher than those with a BMI in the obese range (28% ct 18%; p=0.002).

Table G5. In a typical week, on how many days would you do moderate or vigorous physical activity for at least 30 minutes? (Sample: 2,036)

Response Respondents (%) Sep-15

None 16One day 13Two days 16Three days 18Four days 10Five days 11Six days 5Seven days 8Unsure 2Meet guideline 24

Daily intake of fruit and vegetablesIntake of fruit and vegetables for Australians ages 18 years and older was measured against the guidelines recommending at least two serves of fruit and five serves of vegetables daily.16

Just over half of respondents reported regularly consuming two or more serves of fruit daily. Females were significantly more likely to report consuming the recommended servings of fruit per day than males (54% ct 48%; p=0.05).

Those with a university education were more likely than those without to report they consume two or more serves of fruit daily (57% ct 46%; p<0.0001).



More than half (56%) of respondents with a BMI in the normal weight range reported consuming the recommended servings of fruit daily, compared to 41% of those with a BMI in the obese range (p<0.0001).

Table G6. How many serves of vegetables (including fresh, dried, frozen and tinned vegetables) do you usually eat each day? (Sample: 2,036)

Response Respondents (%) Sep-151–2 serves 463–4 serves 395 serves or more 9Don’t eat vegetables 2Meet guideline 91–2 serves 463–4 serves 39Unsure 2Meet guideline 24

Only one in 11 respondents reported that they regularly consume five or more serves of vegetables daily.

Table G7. How many serves of fruit (including fresh, frozen and tinned fruit) do you usually eat each day? (Sample: 2,036)

Response Respondents (%) Sep-151 serves 382 serves 373 serves or more 15Don’t eat fruit 7Unsure 4Meet guideline 51


Chapter 3 – Area of Enquiry 3 Nutrient status of products carrying a HSR system graphic3.1 Chapter summary3.1.1 Nutrient status of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) The most commonly displayed HSR on pack was 4.0, which was on 30% of

products displaying the HSR system graphic.

The lowest star ratings (0.5, 1.0) were displayed on the least number of products (n = 2, both).

For products that displayed the HSR system graphic, the mean HSR was 4.0.

The mean HSR was greatest for the ‘1 – Beverages’ Category Class (4.5) and lowest for the ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ Category Class (2.0).

The ‘2 – Food’ Category Class had the majority of products displaying the HSR system graphic (86%).

For each nutrient that underpins the HSRC (energy, saturated fat, sugars, sodium, protein and fibre)1, the mean nutrient content per 100 g/100 mL was similar between HSR products and non-HSR products across all HSR Category Classes.

3.2 MethodologyTo conduct part of this assessment, CSIRO software engineers developed automated reporting scripts in FoodTrackTM that provided reports relating to the nutrient status of products displaying the HSR system. The following parameters were used:

Descriptive statistics including category and group counts

Distribution of HSR by HSR Category Class and overall

Mean HSR by HSR Category Class and overall

Mean nutrient values, by HSR Category Class, and by the following three groups:

- products displaying the HSR system graphic (‘HSR products’)

- products not displaying the HSR system graphic (‘non-HSR products’)

- whole HSR Category Class§§§ (‘whole category’).

For the automated reporting, a series of rules was created in FoodTrackTM:

all product NIP data was for the product ‘as consumed’

§§§ It was not possible to conduct this work by HSR Category as the sample sizes were too small.


for categories that have NIP data as ‘dry/undiluted’ only, these were calculated separately; ‘Hot cereals – flavoured’, ‘Hot cereals – plain’, ‘Pasta & Noodles – plain’

All NIP data to be reported 100 g/100 mL

NIP data with ‘<’ values was treated as a whole number, eg. ‘<1’ treated as 1

any data that was missing (N/A) was treated as missing data, not zero.

As there is no comparator, i.e. these were Year 1 measurements (June 2014 to June 2015), no assessment against changes to the formulation of products displaying the HSR system graphic over time was possible. It is anticipated that this additional work will be able to be conducted for Year 2 reporting.

It should be noted that due to the small sample sizes of products displaying the HSR system graphic, when broken down by HSR Category Class, no statistical analysis comparing the groups was able to be performed. These results are therefore primarily descriptive. It is anticipated when the volume of products displaying the HSR system graphic increases (for Year 1), statistical comparisons will be able to be conducted for some variables.

3.2.1 Data analysisUnless specified, all analyses for AoE 3 were conducted in Microsoft Excel 2013. Automated reporting scripts were developed for use in FoodTrackTM, a cloud-based SQL database.

3.3 Results3.3.1 Nutrient status of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)The number of products displaying each HSR on pack is outlined in Figure 3.1. The most commonly displayed HSR on pack was 4.0, which was on 30% of products. Similar levels of presence were seen for HSRs 3.5, 4.5 and 5.0. The lowest star ratings, 0.5 and 1.0, were displayed on the least number of products (n = 2, both).

Figure 3.1. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)


It was not possible to conduct this work by HSR Category as the sample sizes were too small.

For products that displayed the HSR system graphic at Year 1, the mean HSR was 4.0****. Figure 3. 2 shows the mean HSR by HSR Category Class. There were no products at Year 1 displaying the HSR system graphic that belonged to the ‘2D – Dairy food’ Category Class. The mean HSR was greatest for ‘1 – Beverages’ (4.5), and lowest for ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ (2.0)††††.

The number of products displaying each HSR on pack across the five HSR Category Classes is outlined in Figure 3.3. The majority of products were observed in the ‘2 – Food’ Category Class across all HSRs except 0.5 and 1.0. This is reflective of the fact that 86% of products displaying the HSR system at Year 1 fell into the ‘2 – Food’ Category Class. The large majority (27/32) of products in the ‘1 – Beverages’ Category Class displayed 5.0 stars.

Figure 3. 2. Mean HSR displayed on pack, by HSR Category Class, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

**** Excludes products displaying Option 5, energy icon only, as this cannot be quantified as a single HSR.†††† Category Class product counts are as follows: n=3, 2, 285, 9 and 32 for Class 3, 3D, 2, 1D and 1, respectively


Figure 3.3. Number of products (n) displaying each HSR on pack, by HSR Category Class, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

Those products in the ‘1D – Dairy beverages’ Category Class all displayed 3.0 stars or more, where as those in the ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’ all displayed 3.0 stars or less. Note the small sample size, however, in these latter two HSR Category Classes (n = 5 in total)‡‡‡‡.

This next section compares the nutrient status of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015) to that of products without the HSR system graphic, within each of the five HSR Category Classes (there were no products at Year 1 displaying the HSR system graphic that belonged to the ‘2D – Dairy food’ Category Class). Specifically, comparisons were made of the nutrients that are incorporated into the HSRC, i.e. energy, saturated fat, sugars, sodium, protein, and fibre§§§§. All per 100 g or 100 mL as consumed.

Statistical comparisons were not conducted due to the small sample size within most of these groups. In addition, analysis did not specifically look at these same comparisons by HSR Category due to the even smaller sample sizes of products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1. It is anticipated more detailed analysis will be able to be conducted for Year 2 reporting, which will have a larger number of products displaying the HSR system graphic, and will have Year 1 data as a comparator for assessment of reformulation over time*****.

For this next section, the sample size of some groups was small and should be interpreted with caution. The product counts are summarised in Table 3.1. Where product counts for those not displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (‘non-HSR products’) varied across nutrients, this is reflective of missing data on-pack. The count

‡‡‡‡ Category Class product counts are as follows: n=3, 2, 285, 9 and 32 for Class 3, 3D, 2, 1D and 1, respectively.§§§§ Fruit, vegetable, nut, legume (FVNL) content has been excluded from the analyses in this section.***** Excludes those displaying Option 5, energy icon. Also excludes 28 products in ‘2 – Food’, for which NIP data was only available ‘dry/undiluted’. All other data is reported per 100 g/100 ml ‘as consumed’


varied for fibre for both products displaying the HSR system graphic (‘HSR products’) and those not displaying the HSR system graphic (‘non-HSR products’) as it is not mandatory to list fibre on the NIP, and therefore the counts are lower for fibre than all other nutrients listed (Table 3.1).

The next section compares the mean values of the nutrients listed in Table 3.1 between HSR products and non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class.

There was no marked difference in the mean energy content (per 100 g/100 mL) between each of HSR products and non-HSR products, within each HSR Category Class (Figure 3.4). The greatest variance was observed in ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ for which the HSR products had a higher mean energy content than the non- HSR products. However this result should be interpreted with caution as there were only three products at Year 1 displaying the HSR system in this HSR Category Class. A similar observance was seen with ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’, which also had a small sample size (n = 2) for products displaying the HSR system graphic at Year 1 (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.5 shows similar trends for the mean saturated fat content for both ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’, which although may appear more marked than the differences observed within these categories for the mean energy content, again the small sample sizes at Year 1 should be noted (n = 3 and n = 2, respectively).

Table 3.1. Number of products (n) in each HSR Category Class, by HSR vs non-HSR products, for each nutrient, at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

Grouping Nutrient(s) per 100 g/100 mL

1:Beverages (n)

1D:Dairy beverages

(n)

2:Food (n)

3:Oils & spreads

(n)

3D:Cheese &

processed cheese (n)

HSR products

EnergySaturated fatSugarsProteinSodium

32 9 257 3 2

HSR products Fibre 27 9 219 N/A N/A

Non-HSR products Energy 816 282 8,324 292 418

Non-HSR products Saturated fat 816 281 8,307 292 417

Non-HSR products Sugars 816 282 8,314 289 415

Non-HSR products Protein 816 282 8,323 290 418

Non-HSR products Sodium 816 282 8,319 269 416

Non-HSR products Fibre 319 107 2,573 10 19


Figure 3.4. Mean energy content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

Figure 3.5. Mean saturated fat content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)


The mean sugars content for ‘1D – Dairy Beverages’ and ‘2 – Food’, as shown in Figure 3.6, was visibly less for HSR products vs non-HSR products. Conversely, this was the opposite for ‘1 – Beverages’. The sugars content of ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’ was minimal across both groups (HSR products and non-HSR products), which would be expected given the nutritional profile of these types of foods.

The mean sodium content of HSR products in ‘2 – Food’ and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’ was lower than that of the products without. Conversely, the opposite was observed in ‘3 – Oils and spreads’, noting the small product count, n = 2 (Figure 3.7).

The mean protein content of products in ‘2 – Food‘ and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’ was slightly greater for HSR products compared to non-HSR products compared to those without (Figure 3.8). The opposite was observed with ‘1D – Dairy beverages’.

Figure 3.6. Mean sugars content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)


Figure 3.7. Mean sodium content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

The mean fibre content, as shown in Figure 3.9, was greatest in ‘2 – Food’, and there was minimal difference between HSR and non-HSR products, within this HSR Category Class. Conversely, the mean fibre content for both HSR and non-HSR products was much lower for ‘1 – Beverages’, ‘1D – Dairy beverages’, ‘3 – Oils and spreads’ and ‘3D – Cheese and processed cheese’. This would be expected, however, due to the nutritional profile of the foods and beverages in these HSR Category Classes†††††.

Figure 3.8. Mean protein content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)

††††† Note mean fibre values for Category Classes 3 and 3D, for HSR products, are N/A as fibre not available on the NIPs.


Figure 3.9. Mean fibre content of HSR vs non-HSR products, by HSR Category Class at Year 1 (June 2014 to June 2015)


References1. Commonwealth of Australia. Labelling Logic; Review of Food Labelling Law and

Policy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011. Available at: www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/Content/labelling-logic. Accessed 17 March 2016.

2. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code 1.2.7; Nutrition, Health and Related Claims. Canberra: FSANZ; 2015. Available at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/industry/labelling/Pages/Further- work-related-to-Standard-1.2.7-.aspx. Accessed 17 March 2016.

3. Department of Health. Health Star Rating system. Available at: http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/style-guide. Accessed 17 March 2016.

4. Program Logic 2015. Available at: http://evaluationtoolbox.net.au/. Accessed 17 March 2016.

5. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Australian Health Survey: First Results, 2011-1’, cat. no. 4364.0.55.001. Canberra: ABS; 2014. Available at: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4364.0.55.001main+features12011-12. Accessed 17 March 2016.

6. Department of Health. Guide for industry to the Health Star Rating Calculator; Version 3. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015.

7. Department of Health. Health Star Rating System Style Guide: Version 3.3. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014.

8. Retail Media. Retail World Annual Report December 2014. Sydney: Retail Media; 2015.

9. Retail Media. Retail World Annual Report December 2015. Sydney: Retail Media; 2016.

10. Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC). DIG Audit Report May 2013. Canberra: AFGC; 2013.

11. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code. Canberra: FSANZ; 2015. Available at: www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 17 March 2016.

12. Department of Health. Health Star Rating Calculator v 3.3. Available at: http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/excel-calculator. Accessed 17 March 2016.

13. Parker G, Frith R, Polliante Research. Health Star Rating System: Campaign Evaluation Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015. Available at: http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/Content/formative-research. Accessed 17 March 2016.


14. Parker G, Souvlis P, Parry-Husbands H, Pollinate Research. Health Star Rating System: Consumer Use and Understanding. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015. Available at: http://www.healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/ publishing.nsf/Content/DFBB60481884B091CA257F1C000B631B/$File/HSR-Consumer-Use-and-Understanding-Benchmark- report.pdf. Accessed 17 March 2016.

15. Commonwealth of Australia. Australia’s Physical Activity & Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for Adults (18–64 years). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014. Available at: www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pubhlth-strateg- phys-act-guidelines. Accessed 17 March 2016.

16. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Australian Dietary Guidelines 2013. Canberra: NHMRC; 2013. Available at: www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/n55. Accessed 17 March 2016.


Appendix 1 - Wave 1 Uptake ReportReport for Wave 1 of additional uptake monitoring of the Health Star Rating (HSR) System, in Australian supermarkets in September 2015

Submission to: Department of Health (the Department)

Submitted by: National Heart Foundation of Australia (the Heart Foundation)

Thursday 22 October 2015

Contact: Project Manager – Xenia Cleanthous Manager, Nutrition Data & Analysis, Health Outcomes

Tel: (03) 9321 1516

Email: [email protected]

BackgroundThe Department have requested more regular monitoring of uptake of the Health Star Rating (HSR) system across products stocked in the two major retailers (Coles and Woolworths).

In response to this, the Heart Foundation submitted a proposal in July 2015 to conduct an additional three waves of data collection to monitor the uptake of the HSR system in-store. The time frames for these three waves are:

Wave 1 – September 2015

Wave 2 – January 2016

Wave 3 – May 2016.

This report provides the results for the Wave 1 of this collection.

MethodologyThe Heart Foundation is using the joint Heart Foundation and CSIRO FoodTrackTM

database to conduct the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the HSR system for a two-year period (retrospective June 2014 to June 2016). The data collection method, to populate this database, is an annual rolling process whereby the 80+ categories are collected progressively throughout the year, across major Australian retailers – Coles and Woolworths.

The Heart Foundation currently has a team of trained data collection field officers (qualifications in nutrition and/or dietetics) who populate the FoodTrackTM database on an ongoing basis, by collecting data in-store using smartphone technology.

This collection methodology does not capture the roll-out of the HSR system at a given point in time. The Health Star Rating Advisory Committee (HSRAC) and the Department of Health (the Department) regularly receive requests for an update on the number of products carrying the HSR system at a given time point, and currently have no methodology in place to capture this on a regular basis.


To address the request for the additional uptake monitoring, one of our trained data collection officers was recruited specifically for this piece of work.

The activities conducted were as follows:

1. Heart Foundation staff developed a template for collection of the required data in-store, and an additional standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure standardised collection methodology.

2. The data collection officer was trained for this work using the developed SOP. Training was conducted by Heart Foundation staff and the officer was provided with instructions regarding the data they were required to collect.

3. Data was collected according to the SOP during two consecutive weeks in September.

4. The written record of data collected was transcribed into an existing Excel template.

5. Data collected was audited by Heart Foundation staff, and supplemented with products in the FoodTrackTM database that display the HSR system, that were not captured in-store.

What was collected (as per original proposal) Barcode, manufacturer, brand, item description (including pack size).

Presence of a HSR system graphic.

What was not collected (as per original proposal) No additional product information, i.e.: images, star-type, use of ‘snail’ or not, NIP

data, ingredients, position on packaging, etc.

Scope of products The data collection officer visited one major Coles and one major Woolworths in

metropolitan Victoria during the month of September.

All Private Label and Branded products were reviewed, for all FoodTrackTM

categories.

Multipacks and variety packs were included.

Products with multiple pack sizes were included, with one record per pack size.

ResultsA total of 1,513 products were recorded for the given time point. In addition, there were 13 multipack products which displayed more than one HSR system graphic on pack to reflect the different flavour variants.


Table A1.1 outlines the number of products found in-store, by manufacturer, by brand.

Table A1.1. Products with HSF graphic found in-store by manufacturer and brand

Manufacturer BrandCount of Products with a HSR system graphic

Al & Dan’s (Manufacturer) Al & Dan’s - All brands 2Al & Dan’s (Manufacturer) Al & Dan’s 2Arnott’s Biscuits Arnott’s Biscuits - All brands 5Arnott’s Biscuits Arnott’s 5Australian Wholefoods Australian Wholefoods - All brands 3Australian Wholefoods Clever Cooks 3Betta Foods Australia Betta Foods Australia - All brands 8Betta Foods Australia Capricorn 8Campbell Australia Campbell Australia - All brands 2Campbell Australia V8 2Carman’s Kitchen Carman’s Kitchen - All brands 15Carman’s Kitchen Carman’s 15Chris’ Dips Chris’ Dips - All brands 4Chris’ Dips Chris’ 4Emma & Tom Foods Emma & Tom Foods - All brands 7Emma & Tom Foods Emma & Tom’s 7Fonterra Australia Fonterra Australia - All brands 6Fonterra Australia Nestle 6Food For Health (Manufacturer) Food For Health (Manufacturer) - All brands 11Food For Health (Manufacturer) Food For Health 11

Freedom Nutritional Products

Freedom Nutritional Products - All brands 18

Freedom Nutritional Products Freedom Foods 18

Go Natural (Manufacturer) Go Natural (Manufacturer) - All brands 3Go Natural (Manufacturer) Go Natural 3Green’s General Foods Green’s General Foods - All brands 1Green’s General Foods Lowan 1Hampden Trading Hampden Trading - All brands 1Hampden Trading Freelicious 1HJ Heinz Company Australia HJ Heinz Company Australia - All brands 18

HJ Heinz Company Australia Heinz 18



Kellogg (Aust) Kellogg (Aust) - All brands 44Kellogg (Aust) Be Natural 1Kellogg (Aust) Kellogg’s 42Kellogg (Aust) Vogel’s 1Kez’s Kitchen Kez’s Kitchen - All brands 1Kez’s Kitchen Kez’s 1Lion – Dairy & Drinks Lion – Dairy & Drinks - All brands 40Lion – Dairy & Drinks Berri 5Lion – Dairy & Drinks Just Juice 8Lion – Dairy & Drinks The Daily Juice Company 17Lion – Dairy & Drinks Vitasoy 2Lion – Dairy & Drinks YoGo 1Lion – Dairy & Drinks Yoplait 7Lucozade Ribena Suntory Lucozade Ribena Suntory - All brands 1Lucozade Ribena Suntory Ribena 1Mayver’s Health Time Mayver’s Health Time - All brands 5Mayver’s Health Time Health Time 5Monster Health Food Co Monster Health Food Co - All brands 5Monster Health Food Co Monster Muesli 5Nestle Australia Nestle Australia - All brands 156Nestle Australia Allens 23Nestle Australia Maggi 18Nestle Australia Milo 8Nestle Australia Nestle 35Nestle Australia Uncle Toby’s 71Nestle Australia Wonka 1Norco Foods Norco Foods - All brands 3Norco Foods Mighty Cool 3Parilla Fresh Parilla Fresh - All brands 3Parilla Fresh Good 4U 3Picot Productions Picot Productions - All brands 2Picot Productions Pic’s 2Popina Foods Popina Foods - All brands 18Popina Foods Arnold’s Farm 11Popina Foods Goodness Superfoods 7Primo Moraitis Fresh Primo Moraitis Fresh - All brands 2Primo Moraitis Fresh Mrs Crocket’s 2Private Label – Coles Private Label – Coles - All brands 557



Private Label – Coles Coles 508Private Label – Coles Coles Graze 1Private Label – Coles Coles Grill 16Private Label – Coles Coles Made Easy 13Private Label – Coles Coles Simply Gluten Free 4Private Label – Coles Coles Smart Buy 15Private Label – Woolworths Private Label – Woolworths - All brands 368Private Label – Woolworths Homebrand 31Private Label – Woolworths Macro 52Private Label – Woolworths Macro Organic 28Private Label – Woolworths Woolworths 66Private Label – Woolworths Woolworths Created With Jamie 30Private Label – Woolworths Woolworths Free From Dairy 3Private Label – Woolworths Woolworths Free From Gluten 2Private Label – Woolworths Woolworths Gold 9Private Label – Woolworths Woolworths Select 147PureBred Bakery PureBred Bakery - All brands 2PureBred Bakery Pure Bred 2Rinoldi Pasta Rinoldi Pasta - All brands 8Rinoldi Pasta Vetta 8Sanitarium Health Foods Company

Sanitarium Health Foods Company - All brands 85

Sanitarium Health Foods Company Naturally Nood 9

Sanitarium Health Foods Company Sanitarium 58

Sanitarium Health Foods Company So Good 13

Sanitarium Health Foods Company Vegie Delights 5

Simplot Australia Simplot Australia - All brands 42Simplot Australia Birds Eye 20Simplot Australia John West 5Simplot Australia Lean Cuisine 14Simplot Australia Quorn 3SPC Ardmona Operations SPC Ardmona Operations - All brands 6SPC Ardmona Operations Ardmona 6Spreyton Fresh Tasmania Spreyton Fresh Tasmania - All brands 1Spreyton Fresh Tasmania Spreyton Fresh 1



Sunbeam Foods Sunbeam Foods - All brands 4Sunbeam Foods Sunbeam 4Sunpork Fresh Foods Sunpork Fresh Foods - All brands 5Sunpork Fresh Foods Sunpork 5The Happy Snack Company (Manufacturer)

The Happy Snack Company (Manufacturer) - All brands 2

The Happy Snack Company (Manufacturer) The Happy Snack Company 2

The Juice Lab (Manufacturer) The Juice Lab (Manufacturer) - All brands 5The Juice Lab (Manufacturer) The Juice Lab 5The Wrigley Company The Wrigley Company - All brands 19The Wrigley Company Skittles 6The Wrigley Company Starburst 13The Yoghurt Co The Yoghurt Co - All brands 3The Yoghurt Co Evia 3Tucker’s Natural Tucker’s Natural - All brands 3Tucker’s Natural Tucker’s 3Unilever Australasia Unilever Australasia - All brands 10Unilever Australasia Continental 10Vitality Brands Worldwide Vitality Brands Worldwide - All brands 3Vitality Brands Worldwide Well Naturally 3YOLO (Manufacturer) YOLO – all brands 6YOLO (Manufacturer) YOLO 6Total count - all manufacturers Total count - all brands 1,513

The 13 multipack products that displayed more than one HSR system graphic on pack include:

eight x Nestle Australia products (Brand; Nestle – Ski D’lite) that were multipacks with more than one HSR system graphic on them (one for each flavour variant)

five x Private Label – Woolworths products (Brand; Woolworths Select) that were multipacks with more than one HSR system graphic on them (one for each flavour variant).

Appendix 2 - Compliance checklist# Question Answer Next step

1 Does the product carry a HSR system graphic?

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q22 = End of questions

2 Is the product one that 1 = Yes Go to Q3


# Question Answer Next step

can display a HSR system graphic?

2 = No

3 Is the product one that is intended to display a HSR system graphic?

1 = Yes2 = 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 nutrient2 = HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients3 = HSR + energy icon4 = HSR5 = Energy icon

1 = Go to Q52 = Go to Q63 = Go to Q74 = Go to Q85 = Go to Q9

Q5 - HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients + 1 optional nutrient


5A Which HSR system graphic configuration has been used?

1 = Horizontal2 = Vertical

Go to Q5B

5B Is the HSR system graphic on the front of pack?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5C

5C Is the HSR element of the graphic larger than the nutrient information elements?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5D

5D Is the HSR system graphic presented with contrasting background and text?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5E

5E Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½ star to 5 stars in ½ star increments?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5F

5F Does the HSR system graphic value match the numerical rating value?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5G

5GAre the words ‘Health Star Rating’ displayed prominently below the HSR element of the graphic?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5H

5HHas sufficient space been provided to accommodate energy and nutrient names and values in a clear and legible way?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5I

5I Have the correct prescribed nutrients been used?

1 = Yes2 = 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 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5K

5K Does the optional nutrient icon provide nutrition information only?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5L



5L Do the energy and nutrient values reflect those stated in the NIP?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5M

5M Have the energy and nutrient values been recorded in the correct units?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5N

5N Have the energy and nutrient values been recorded to the correct decimal places?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5O

5O Does the energy icon display %DI?1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q5P2 = Go to Q5Q

5PIf %DI is used, is the HSR system graphic displayed ‘per serve’ or ‘per pack’ and according to guidelines?

1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q5Q

5Q Does the product contain the dietary intake guide on pack? Please note where on pack.

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q5R2 = 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 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q5S

5S Do the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’?

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q5T2 = Go to Q5U

5T If the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’, have they been used correctly?

1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q5U

5U Is the nominated reference measure appropriate?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5V

5V

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)?

= Yes2 = No

Go to Q5W

5W Is the serve size specified in the NIP?1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5X

5X Is the nominated reference measure legible?1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q5Y

5Y Is the product a multipack?1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q5Z2 = End of questions

5Z If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system graphic displayed?

1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single variant multipack2 = One HSR system graphic that

End of questions


# Question Answer Next stepis an average of all flavour variants3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour variants4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour variants5 = Other (please specify)6 = N/A

5AA What optional nutrient has been used?

F = fibreP = proteinC = calciumI = ironM = magnesiumO = omega 3VE = vitamin EVC - vitamin CFo = folateVA = vitamin A

Q6 - HSR + energy icon + 3 prescribed nutrients



1 = Horizontal2 = Vertical

Go to Q6B


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6C


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6D


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6E


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6F


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6G


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6H

6H Has sufficient space been provided to accommodate energy and nutrient

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6I


# Question Answer Next stepnames and values in a clear and legible way?

6I Have the correct prescribed nutrients been used?

1 = Yes2 = 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 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6K

6K Do the energy and nutrient values reflect those stated in the NIP?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6L

6L Have the energy and nutrient values been recorded in the correct units?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6M

6MHave the energy and nutrient values been recorded to the correct decimal places?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6N

6NDoes the energy icon display %DI?

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q6O2 = Go to Q6P

6OIf %DI is used, is the HSR graphic displayed ‘per serve’ or ‘per pack’ and according to guidelines?

1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q6P

6PDoes the product contain the dietary intake guide on pack? Please note where on pack.

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q6Q2 = Go to Q6R

6Q


1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q6R

6R Do the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’?

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q6S2 = Go to Q6T

6S If the nutrients use the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’, have they been used correctly?

1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q6T

6T Is the nominated reference measure appropriate?

1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q6U

6U


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6V

6V Is the serve size specified in the NIP?1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6W



6W Is the nominated reference measure legible?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q6X

6X Is the product a multipack?1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q6Y2 = End of questions

6Y If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system graphic displayed?

1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single variant multipack2 = One HSR system graphic that is an average of all flavour variants3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour variants4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour variants5 = Other (please specify)6 = N/A

End of questions

Q7 - HSR + energy icon



1 = Horizontal (refer to image)2 = Vertical (refer to image)

Go to Q7B


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7C


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7D


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7E


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7F


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7G


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7H

7H Has sufficient space been provided to accommodate energy name and value in

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7I


# Question Answer Next stepa clear and legible way?

7I Does the energy value reflect that stated in the NIP?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7J

7J Has the energy value been recorded in the correct unit?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7K

7K Has the energy value been recorded to the correct decimal place?

1 = Yes2 = 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 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7M

7M Does the energy icon display %DI?1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q7N2 = Go to Q7O

7NIf %DI is used, is the HSR graphic displayed ‘per serve’ or ‘per pack’ and according to guidelines?

1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q7O

7ODoes the product contain the dietary intake guide on pack? Please note where on pack.

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q7P2 = Go to Q7Q

7P


1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q7Q

7Q Is the nominated reference measure appropriate?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7R

7R


1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7S

7S Is the serve size specified in the NIP?1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7T

7T Is the nominated reference measure legible?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q7U

7U Is the product a multipack?1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q7V2 = End of questions

7V If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system graphic displayed?

1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single variant multipack2 = One HSR system graphic that is an

End of questions


# Question Answer Next stepaverage of all flavour variants3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour variants4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour variants5 = Other (please specify)6 = N/A

Q8 - HSR


8A Is the HSR system graphic on the front of pack?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q8B

8B Is the HSR system graphic presented with contrasting background and text?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q8C

8C Is the HSR system graphic a rating of ½ star to 5 stars in ½ star increments?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q8D

8D Does the HSR system graphic value match the numerical rating value?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q8E

8EAre the words ‘Health Star Rating’ displayed prominently below the HSR element of the graphic?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q8F

8FDoes the product contain the dietary intake guide on pack? Please note where on pack.

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q8G 2 = Go to Q8H

8G


1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q8H

8H Is the product a multipack?1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q8I2 = End of questions

8I If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system graphic displayed?

1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single variant multipack2 = One HSR system graphic that is an average of all flavour variants3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the

End of questions


# Question Answer Next stepflavour variants4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour variants5 = Other (please specify)6 = N/A

Q9 - Energy icon


9A Is the HSR system graphic on the front of pack?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q9B

9B Is the HSR system graphic presented with contrasting background and text?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q9C

9CHas sufficient space been provided to accommodate energy name and value in a clear and legible way?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q9D

9D Does the energy value reflect that stated in the NIP?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q9E

9E Has the energy value been recorded in the correct unit?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q9F

9F Has the energy value been recorded to the correct decimal place?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q9G

9G Does the energy icon display %DI?1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q9H 2 = Go to Q9I

9HIf %DI is used, is the HSR graphic displayed ‘per serve’ or ‘per pack’ and according to guidelines?

1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q9I

9IDoes the product contain the dietary intake guide on pack? Please note where on pack.

1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q9J 2 = Go to Q9K

9J


1 = Yes2 = No3 = N/A

Go to Q9K

9K Is the nominated reference measure appropriate?

1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q9L

9L Is the nominated reference measure above or below the energy icon?

1 = Below2 = Above

Go to Q9M

9M Is the serve size specified in the NIP?1 = Yes2 = No

Go to Q9N

9N Is the nominated reference measure 1 = Yes Go to Q9O


# Question Answer Next steplegible? 2 = No

9O Is the product a multipack?1 = Yes2 = No

1 = Go to Q9P2 = End of questions

9P If the product is a multipack, how is the HSR system graphic displayed?

1 = One HSR system graphic reflecting a single variant multipack2 = One HSR system graphic that is an average of all flavour variants3 = One HSR system graphic of one of the flavour variants4 = Multiple HSR system graphics for all flavour variants5 = Other (please specify)6 = N/A

End of questions


Appendix 3 - Foods that contribute to FVNL values, and examples for determining FVNL content from incomplete datasetsAccording to Standard 1.2.7 in the Food Standards Code (2), foods that contribute to the %FVNL values are:

fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes

spices, herbs, fungi, seeds, and algae

fresh, cooked, frozen, canned, pickled or preserved

peeled, diced or cut (or otherwise reduced in size), pureed or dried

fruit juice or vegetable juice, including concentrated juices and purees

coconut flesh (as a nut) – juiced, dried or desiccated, water in the centre of the coconut.

What cannot count towards %FVNL or % conc F+V Processed coconut products such as coconut milk, coconut cream or coconut oil.

A constituent, extract or isolate of a food mentioned above (e.g. peanut oil derived from peanuts, fruit pectin, de-ionised juices).

Cereal grains as a class of food in Schedule 4 of Standard 1.4.2 (e.g. barley, buckwheat, maize, millet, oats, popcorn, rice, rye, sorghum, triticale, wheat and wild rice).

Oils derived from seeds, nuts, vegetables/herbs.

Table A3.1 lists how different products would be classified.

Table A3.1. Classification system examples

% FVNL % conc F +VTomato pureePotato crisps

Dried fruitTomato paste

Below is a series of example where the complete %FVNL and % conc F+V values cannot be fully determined from the ingredients list, and assumptions are required.

Example 1 – Tomatoes chopped 400 gIngredients: tomatoes 99% (chopped 64%, juice, paste)

% FVNL / % conc F+V: paste concentrated, juice/chopped not, but only chopped quantified

Conclusion: use nutrition expertise to provide a recommended approach


Example 2 – Coconut milk original 1 LIngredients: coconut milk 21% (water, coconut cream)

% FVNL / % conc F+V: apply technical knowledge of manufacturing of coconut milk to infer that water is plain water, not coconut water

Conclusion: % FVNL = 0%

Example 3 – Chicken thighs lemon and herb 450 gIngredients: garlic 1%, parsley 0.8%, lemon zest 0.6%, pepper 0.5%, celery

% FVNL / % conc F+V: the celery component does not have a quantity specified, however is at the end of the ingredient list → assume negligible and disregard

Conclusion: % FVNL = 2.9%

Example 4 – Mixed frozen vegetables 850 gIngredients: broccoli, yellow beans, carrot, sugar snap peas, water chestnuts, capsicum

% FVNL / % conc F+V: no percentages have been assigned to any of the ingredients how they are the only ingredients listed → assume 100% vegetables

Conclusion: % FVNL = 100%


Appendix 4 - Consumer survey questionnaire for AoE 2Survey introductionThank 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, 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 again for your time.

SCREENINGInstructions Question Response optionsASK ALL QS1. To begin with could you please confirm

your age?Under 18, 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

ASK ALL QS2. Are you the main or shared grocery buyer in your household?[NB: Main grocery buyer is the person in your household who does most of the grocery shopping]

Main grocery buyer, Shared grocery buyer, Not the grocery buyer, Unsure

ASK ALL QS3. What gender are you? Male, FemaleASK ALL QS4. Where do you live? NSW, VIC, QLD, SA, WA, NT,

TAS, ACTASK ALL QS5. What is your postcode? Specify

MODULE A: GENERAL SUPERMARKETInstructions Question Response optionsASK ALL QA1. When buying food at the

supermarket, what is the main thing that influences your choice between two similar products?

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

ASK ALL QA2. On average, how often do you visit a supermarket to do your grocery shopping?

Every day, Several times a week, Once a week, Once a fortnight, Once a month, Less often than monthly, Unsure


Instructions Question Response optionsASK ALL QA3. Which supermarkets have you

visited in the past month?ALDI, BI-LO, Coles, IGA, Woolworths/Safeway, Foodworks, Costco, Other (Please specify)Unsure

ASK ALL QA4. On average, how much do you spend in one visit to the supermarket?

Under $20, $20 to $49, $50 to $99, $100 to $149, $150 to $199, $200 or more, It varies, Unsure

ASK ALL QA5. 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

ASK ALL QA6. 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

MODULE B: AWARENESS OFInstructions Question Response optionsASK 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?

Health Star Rating, Glycemic Index, No added salt/reduced salt, Australian made, Country of origin, Environment safe, Heart Foundation Tick, Organic, Natural, Fat reduced/low fat, Lite, Fat free, Cholesterol free, Low joule/low calories, Energy/kilojoules, Unsweetened/no added sugar/sugar free, Weight watchers, Gluten free, Other, Unsure

ASK ALL QB2. Are you aware of the Health Star Rating system?

Yes, No, Unsure

ASK ALL QB3. Which of the following are you aware of on food packaging?

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 (Exc), Unsure (Exc)


MODULE C: KNOWLEDGEASK Questions in this module IF QB2 = Yes. IF QB2 = No or Unsure, GO TO QJ1

QC1. When the Health Star Rating system is on the packaging of food, what do you think it means?

QC2. In your opinion, how is the number of stars on a product determined?

QC3. 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…?

Question Response optionsMakes it easier for me to compare products that are in the same category in the supermarket

Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Unsure

Makes it easier for me to compare products that are in different categories in the supermarket


Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option within a category


Makes it easier for me to identify the healthier option across all categories


Helps me think about the healthiness of food


Helps me make decisions about which foods to buy


Makes me want to buy healthier products Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Unsure

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


QC4. How would you use the Health Star Rating system?

QC5. If a food product has one star, what do you think this means?

QC6. If a food product has five stars, what do you think this means?

MODULE D: UNDERSTANDING OF HSRQD1. 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?

Question Response optionsIt is a healthier option compared to a similar food product with less stars


It is a healthier option compared to a food product with less stars


You can eat it as much as you like compared to a product with less stars


It is more expensive than a product with less stars


It is healthy Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Unsure

It does not taste as good as a product Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,


Question Response optionswith less stars Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Unsure

QD2. The Health Star Rating can be displayed in five different ways. Please select the style you believe…? Is easiest to understand. Is easiest to recognise. Provides sufficient information.

QD3. Overall, please select the style you prefer the most?

QD4. Why do you prefer that option?

MODULE E: PURCHASING BEHAVIOUR (POTENTIAL & CURRENT)Instructions Question Response optionsASK ALLIf answer = No or Unsure, GO TO MODULE F

QE1. In the past three months have you purchased a product that had the Health Star Rating system?

Yes, No, Unsure

IF QE2 = No, GO TO QE5. IF QE2 = Unsure, GO TO QE6

QE2. Did the Health Star Rating system on the product influence your choice?

Yes, No, Unsure

ASK if answer to QE2 = Yes

QE3. 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 QE3 = 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; or Yes, I chose not to buy my usual product because it had fewer stars than other options,

QE4. Have you continued or will continue to buy the product?

Yes, No, Unsure

Ask if QE2 = No QE5. Why didn’t the Health Star Rating system influence your choice?

Specify

Ask if QE2 = Unsure QE6. How likely or unlikely is the Health Star Rating to influence

Very likely, Likely, Unlikely, Very unlikely, Unsure


Instructions Question Response optionschoices you make in the future when buying food?

MODULE F: COMPARISONQF1. Of the Health Star Ratings below, please select which you think is a healthier option in each pair?

Option 1 answer Option 2 answer Option 3 answerThese are the same

These are the same

These are the same

These are the same

These are the same

MODULE G: HSR & FOOD CATEGORIESInstructions Question Response optionsASK IF QE1= Yes

Provide multiple responses

QG1. Please select which foods and/or beverages you purchased in the supermarket which had the Health Star Rating system on them

Bread, Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats, breakfast drinks), Cereal bars, nut/seed bars, fruit bars, Cheese, Confectionary (e.g. lollies, chocolates), Cooking sauces (pasta & other), 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), Ready meals, meal kits, 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.


Instructions Question Response optionstomato sauce), Vegetable oils, Yoghurt & dairy desserts (incl. custards, ice cream, frozen yoghurt), None of the above.

ASK IF QE1= YesProvide multiple responses

QG2. Please select which foods and/or beverages you believe it is important to have the Health Star Rating system on them?

Bread, Breakfast cereals (e.g. ready-to-eat, muesli, oats, breakfast drinks), Cereal bars, nut/seed bars, fruit bars, Cheese, Confectionary (e.g. lollies, chocolates), Cooking sauces (pasta & other), 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), Ready meals, meal kits, 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

MODULE H:ADVERTISING/CAMPAIGNInstructions Question Response optionsASK ALLIf answer = No or Unsure, GO TO MODULE I

QH1. 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

ASK if QH1 = YesProvide multiple responses

QH2. 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 areas, 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

ASK if QH1 = Yes

QH3. Which organisation or company did the advertising or

Specify, Unsure


Instructions Question Response optionspromotion(s)?

ASK if QH1 = Yes

QH4. What product or products were being advertised or promoted?

Specify, Unsure

ASK if QH1 = Yes

QH5. 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

MODULE I: GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE HSRQI1. 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?

Question Response optionsIs a system I trust Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureIs easy to understand Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureIs easy to use Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureStands out on the package Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureMakes choosing food easier Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureHas a good reputation Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureIs informative Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureIs a reliable system Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureIs a credible system Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureIs personally relevant to me Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureIs relevant to my family Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureHas a good reputation Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, UnsureIs open and transparent Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor disagree,

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Unsure

Question Response optionsQI2. Overall, what level of confidence do you have in the Health Star Rating system?

High, Somewhat high, Indifferent, Somewhat low, Very low, Unsure


MODULE J: HEALTH ATTITUDESInstructions Question Response options

ASK ALLQJ1. In general, thinking about all the food you buy, how concerned are you about how healthy the food is for you?

Not at all concerned, A little concerned, Moderately concerned, Very concerned, Extremely concerned, Unsure

ASK ALL QJ2. Thinking about your diet, would you say that what you usually eat is …

Very healthy, Healthy, Neither healthy nor unhealthy, Unhealthy, Very unhealthy, Unsure

ASK ALL QJ3. Over the past six months, have you made any changes to your diet?

Yes, No, Unsure

Ask of QJ3 = YesIF QJ3 = No or Unsure, GO TO J6

QJ4. Which of the following changes have you made in the past six months to your diet?Please select all that apply

Changing the types of foods I eat, Changing the amount of food I eat, Changing how often I eat, Counting calories, Excluding/cutting out types of food from my diet, Other (please specify), Unsure

Ask of QJ3 = Yes

QJ5. For which of the following reasons did you make changes to your diet?Please select all that apply

To lose weight, To improve my physical health , Because of a specific health condition, To maintain my weight, To feel better, To lower my cholesterol , Other (please specify), Unsure

ASK ALL QJ6. In general, would you say your overall health is…?

Excellent, Very good, Good, Fair, Poor, Unsure

MODULE K: HEALTHY WEIGHTInstructions Question Response optionsASK ALL QK1. What is your height? Please

enter just one measure.Metres (Specify), Centimetres (Specify), Feet and inches (Specify), Prefer not to say/Unsure

ASK ALL QK2. What is your weight? Please enter just one measure.

Kilograms (Specify), Pounds (Specify), Stones and Pounds (Specify), Prefer not to say/Unsure

ASK ALL QK3. How many serves of vegetables (including fresh, frozen and tinned) do you usually eat each day? (A ‘serving’ = ½ cup of cooked vegetables or 1 cup of salad vegetables)

1–2 serves, 3–4 serves, 5 serves or more, Don’t eat vegetables, Unsure

ASK ALL QK4. How many serves of fruit (including fresh, frozen and tinned fruit) do you usually eat each day? (A ‘serving’ = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces)

1–2 serves, 3–4 serves, 5 serves or more, Don’t eat fruit, Unsure


MODULE L: RESPONDENT PROFILEInstructions Question Response optionsASK 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

ASK if there are children living at home

QL2. What age ranges do your children (living at home) fall into?

Under 6 years, 1 6–12 years, 13–17 years, 18 years or over, Prefer not to say,

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, Other (please specify), Prefer not to say

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

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?[NB: Gross income is your household income before tax is taken out]

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

ASK ALL QL6. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?

Neither, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Both, Prefer not to say

ASK ALL QL7. Were you born in Australia or overseas?

Australia, Overseas, Prefer not to say

ASK ALL QL8. Do you speak a language other than English at home?

Yes, No, Prefer not to say


report on the monitoring of the implementation of …file/hsr-year1-report.d… · web viewthis was...

Documents