Geoff Drewer - Sanitarium - Rationale for the Health Star Rating system
-
Upload
informa-australia -
Category
Business
-
view
523 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Geoff Drewer - Sanitarium - Rationale for the Health Star Rating system
Health Star Rating System, Rationale
2nd December 2013
Dr Geoff Drewer
Senior Scientist Corporate Regulatory
Introduction
• Public health background
– Lifestyle diseases, myriad of causes
– Existing initiatives, international schemes, government input
– FOPL, one piece of the puzzle
• The FOPL continuum
– From data to interpretation
– Key nutritional drivers
– Scaling the food supply
• FOPL Design information & interpretation
• FOPL politics
• Conclusions
Public Health Background– (life style factors)
Disease
CHD
Diabetes
Stroke
Cancers
Injury
STDs
PCOS
Infertility
COPD
Gallstones
Proximal
Causes
Smoking
Diet
Inactivity
Unsafe sex
Obesity
Sun expos
Alcohol/
Drugs
Pollution
Risk
Factor
Markers
BP
Lipids
-Apos
-Tg
-LDL-C
-HDL-C
High FPG
IGT
CRP
HBA1C
Medial
Causes
Stress
Anxiety
Depression
Social/Peer
pressure
Psych
factors
Occupation
Boredom
Technology
Change
Genetics
Distal
Causes
Industrialism.
‘Modernity’
Economic
Growth
International schemes
• International
approaches
– Multiple Traffic
Light Systems
– Ticks & rating
systems
US
UK
Singapore Nordic
Countries
Au/NZ
etc.
Government input
• Forum on Food
Regulation
– Extended view of
food safety to
include public
health.
– Supports
Interpretive FOPL.
– Design to be
determined via
collaboration &
evidence.
FOPL – one piece of the puzzle
Reduce
Stress
Nutritional
Literacy
Balanced
Energy
Intake
Limit Saturated
& trans Fats
Limit
Alcohol
FOPL No
Smoking
Optimum
Activity/
Exercise
Adequate
Sleep
Ideal Omega
3 to 6
Ratio
Fruits &
Vegetables
The FOPL continuum
• Data FOPL
– NIP
– %DIG
– Modified DIG
The FOPL continuum
• Interpretive FOPL
– Traffic lights
– Multiple traffic lights
– Healthy eating system
– Endorsements
• Thresholds between
colours can be too
coarse.
• Availability &
complexity vs.
accessibility
Nutritional Drivers-.
• Health Star Rating
– Data &
Interpretation
• NPSC Based
– Risk associated
nutrients
– Health associated
nutrients
– Health associated
foods
Spanning & Scaling the food supply–
• NPSC was only designed to determine HC eligibility!
• NPSC extensions, A points (Category 1 & 2 foods)
– Energy did not need extension
– Sugars could be linearly extended
Spanning & Scaling the food supply–
• NPSC extensions, C points (Category 1 & 2 foods)
• FVNL points interpolated between existing NPSC point
allocations
Spanning & Scaling the food supply–
• Star Rating principles
– Scale based on 1000’s of foods supplied by industry
along with foods on the FSANZ database.
– Scale considers key groups in the AGHE along with
what NPSC category the food belongs to.
• Most foods compared on one food scale.
• Most beverages compared on one beverage scale.
• Core dairy compared on appropriate category scales.
• Fats and oils compared on fat & oil scale.
– Star rating of core foods recommended for “daily
intake” in AGHE typically 3 stars or above.
FOPL Design – interpretation & data.
• ‘Interpretive’ elements
– Slider & value.
– Star bar 0.5 to 5 stars.
– Optional ‘high’ or ‘low’
descriptors based on
content claims allowed
in standard 1.2.7.
• Data elements
– Values for; saturated
fat, sodium, sugars.
– Option of one positive
nutrient e.g. fibre.
– Energy icon.
– Generally on per 100g
basis
FOPL Design – politics.
• Health star rating will always be on per 100g (ml) basis.
• Values will need to be ‘interpreted’ by the consumer as well.
• International FOPL tends to use %DI and is part of ANZFSC
• Quantitative consumer research should guide the information elements.
Conclusions
• The Health Star Rating system has been developed to provide
interpretive context to nutritional information.
• The Health Star Rating system is driven by commonly available
ingredient and nutritional information.
• The Health Star Rating system put foods on a scale, rather than
trying to box foods into ‘good’ & ‘bad’ categories
• The Health Star Rating system is currently being tested &
critiqued. Therefore the final design should be able to reflect this
feedback
• Consumer education will be a key requirement regardless of the
final design.