What goes into a food health star rating – and crucially, what doesn’t

April 14, 2026 — 7:00pm

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

Save this article for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them anytime.

Examine, a free weekly newsletter covering science with a sceptical, evidence-based eye, is sent every Tuesday. You’re reading an excerpt – sign up to get the whole newsletter in your inbox.

Last month, Kate Aubusson and I covered a new paper arguing that multinational corporations were the world’s deadliest “vectors of disease”: corporate mosquitos spreading obesity, lung cancer and microplastics.

One line jumped out to a lot of readers: a mention that the food health star system had been co-designed by the food industry and was, to quote a professor of food politics, “deeply flawed”.

Health stars have been with us for more than 10 years now. About four in every 10 products wear them on the front of the box (they will become mandatory in the next few years).

My morning bowl of muesli gets 4.5 stars. My favourite muesli bar gets four. I get to feel smug about my good choices. A lot of readers apparently feel the same.

So … what do you mean, the star ratings are “deeply flawed”?

Health star ratings have a torturous history. Originally, they were meant to be mandatory traffic lights; that later became the star-ratings system.

The food industry was initially on board, but some soon got cold feet. They and public health advocates lobbied ministers and the media, and eventually, in 2014, the government approved a non-mandatory Health Star Ratings system.

Health stars are self-determined by food manufacturers in a multi-step calculation.

Half of what Australians eat is ultra-processed. It’s making us sick

Step 1: Are you selling water or fresh fruit or vegetables? No need to go further, you get an automatic five-star rating

Step 2: Work out which category your........

© The Age