Modifying the Health Star Rating nutrient profiling algorithm to account for ultra-processing.

Abstract

Aim: To modify the Australian and New Zealand Health Star Rating to account for ultra-processing and compare the alignment of the modified ratings with NOVA classifications and the current Australian Dietary Guidelines classifications of core (recommended foods) and discretionary (foods to limit).

Methods: Data was cross-sectionally analysed for 25 486 products. Four approaches were compared to the original Health Star Rating: (1) five 'negative' points added to ultra-processed products (modification 1; inclusion approach); (2) ultra-processed products restricted to a maximum of 3.0 Health Stars (modification 2; capping approach); (3 and 4) same approach used for modifications 1 and 2 but only applied to products that already exceeded 10 'negative' points from existing Health Star Rating attributes (modifications 3 and 4, respectively; hybrid approaches). Alignment occurred when products (i) received <3.5 Health Stars and were NOVA group 4 (for NOVA comparison) or discretionary (for Dietary Guidelines comparison), or (ii) received ≥3.5 Health Stars and were NOVA groups 1-3 or core.

Results: All Health Star Rating modifications resulted in greater alignment with NOVA (ranging from 69% to 88%) compared to the original Health Star Rating (66%). None of the modifications resulted in greater alignment to the Dietary Guidelines classifications overall (69% to 76%, compared with 77% for the original Health Star Rating), but alignment varied considerably by food category.

Conclusions: If ultra-processing were incorporated into the Australian and New Zealand Health Star Rating, consideration of ultra-processing within the broader dietary guidance framework would be essential to ensure coherent dietary messaging to Australians.