PETITION: STOP THE HEALTH STAR RATING’S FALSE HEALTH HALO – DON'T MANDATE A BROKEN FOOD LABELLING SYSTEM
The Australian Government is about to lock in a food rating system that has the potential to mislead families, undermines public health, and shields processed food giants from accountability – all at the expense of Australians’ wellbeing.
Ultra-processed foods packed with additives, artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers, and synthetic fibres are being awarded 3, 4 and 5-star Health Star Ratings, while nutrient-dense wholefoods score lower. These inflated stars hide real risks, including depression, gut inflammation, ADHD-like symptoms, metabolic disease, and even premature death, according to leading international research.
Now, the Government wants to make this flawed system mandatory on all packaged food – without fixing it first.
This move will confuse shoppers, penalise clean-label brands, and lock in a broken algorithm that benefits Big Food over Australian families. Once this system becomes mandatory, it will influence every trolley, every home, and every child’s lunchbox.
0 of 10,000 signatures collected
SIGN UP TO THE REAL FOOD RATING NEWSLETTER - FOR PETITION UPDATES AND REAL FOOD NEWS
WHAT WE'RE DEMANDING
We are calling on all Australian State and Territory Health Ministers and the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care to:
1. Pause the mandate until a full, independent review of the Health Star Rating algorithm – including how stars are calculated and the criteria they’re based on – is conducted, free from industry influence and grounded in the latest science.
2. Ban Health Star Ratings above 3 for products containing:
3. Artificial colours (linked to hyperactivity in children and carrying EU behavioural warnings, e.g. 102 Tartrazine, 104 Quinoline Yellow, 110 Sunset Yellow FCF, 122 Carmoisine, 123 Amaranth, 124 Ponceau 4R, 129 Allura Red AC)
- Emulsifiers (e.g. 471 Mono- & diglycerides, 407 Carrageenan, 432–436 Polysorbates)
- Artificial sweeteners (e.g. 951 Aspartame, 955 Sucralose, 954 Saccharin, 952 Cyclamates)
- Preservatives (e.g. 211 Sodium Benzoate, 320 BHA, 321 BHT)
- Flavour enhancers (e.g. 621 MSG, 627 Disodium guanylate, 631 Disodium inosinate)
- Synthetic fibres (e.g. 466 Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), 1200 Polydextrose)
3. Factor in processing level and additive burden in the algorithm, including the number and type of additives, the presence of ultra-processed ingredients, and the degree of industrial processing (as defined by the NOVA classification).
4. Update the Australian Dietary Guidelines every five years. Australia’s Dietary Guidelines have not been updated since 2013, yet they continue to shape the Health Star Rating algorithm, school canteen menus, and childcare centre food policies. This means outdated science is guiding what’s fed to our children at a national level.
5. Appoint independent public health experts – with no ties to the food industry – to govern the system, ensure transparency, and safeguard public trust.
6. Reward additive-free, wholefood formulations with higher star ratings and provide financial or regulatory incentives for manufacturers to reformulate products using real, nutrient-dense ingredients.
We’re not anti-labelling. We’re pro-science, pro-parent, and pro-transparency.
EXAMPLES OF MISLEADING RATINGS
|
PRODUCT
|
RATING
|
SNAPSHOT OF INGREDIENTS
|
HEALTH WARNING
|
|---|---|---|---|
Ultra-processed foods now make up 42% – 58% of total dietary intake in Australia.
– BMJ, 2024
MANDATING IT NOW PoSES SignifiCant RiSKS
The Australian Government is preparing to submit a proposal to the Food Ministers’ Meeting to mandate the Health Star Rating system by 2026, with just an 18-month transition. If approved, the Ministers will instruct FSANZ to change the Food Standards Code, locking in the system, despite:
- Global evidence linking UPFs to chronic disease and early death
- Concern from dietitians, scientists, and thousands of parents
- No immediate plans to revise the algorithm before its mandated
- Government spending creating a sunk-cost bias - pushing them to roll it out just to justify the money already spent
While countries like Brazil advise avoiding UPFs altogether and the EU warns consumers about risky additives, Australia is about to give ultra-processed products a government-endorsed “health” tick.
Even worse, clean-label brands may be forced to add gut-disrupting synthetic fibres and protein isolates just to keep their stars high, punishing wholefoods and rewarding industrial processing
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE HEALTH STAR RATING SYSTEM?
- Ignores ultra-processing and additives despite strong evidence linking both to chronic disease
- Rewards ultra-processed food, penalises real food with UPFs routinely outscoring nutrient-dense wholefoods like nuts, butter, seeds, and plain yoghurt.
- Lacks independent oversight as brands can “game” the system with no watchdog to keep them accountable.
- Influenced by food industry stakeholders, who helped to develop the algorithm and calculator.
- Built on outdated nutrition science as still tied to the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines.
- Category comparisons hide the truth allowing confectionery and junk foods to achieve high ratings that mislead consumers about absolute healthiness.
- Inflates scores with synthetic fibres and isolated proteins that boost star ratings without improving real nutritional quality.
The result? Ultra-processed snacks loaded with sugar, emulsifiers and fake fibre score higher than nuts, seeds, dried fruit, wholegrain bread or yoghurt.
THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING FAMILIES
We are shaping children’s taste preferences from the very first bite. When parents are steered toward ultra-processed snacks disguised as healthy, we’re setting them up for a lifetime of poor eating habits.
These products are engineered to override hunger cues and hijack developing brains, making real food less appealing over time.. Once those patterns take hold, they’re hard to break.
Don’t let health ratings serve as marketing tools for the processed food industry. We need truth in labelling, built on independent science, not a system built by the very companies it’s meant to regulate.
SIGN THE PETITION
- Let’s stop this system before it’s locked in.
- Let’s demand a food labelling standard that reflects real science, not industry spin.
- Let’s protect children, families, and the future of our food system.
Sign now and share to protect Australian families.
SUPPORTING RESEARCH
2024 Umbrella Review in The BMJ
- The studey involved nearly 10 million people found that greater exposure to UPFs is consistently associated with a higher risk of 32 adverse health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, depression, and several cancers., including:
- Cardiovascular mortality (↑50%)
- Type 2 diabetes (↑12%)
- Depression (↑22%)
- Obesity, sleep problems and cancer
UPF Consumption in Australia – National Survey & Homescan Panel
- UPFs make up about 42% of total dietary energy in Australia (2011–12 national survey).
- Based on 2019 nationally representative Homescan panel data (published 2022, Deakin University), they account for 56.4% of household grocery energy purchases—with higher intake in lower socio-economic households.
The NOVA Classification – Carlos Monteiro, 2009-2024
- NOVA classification and mortality signal
- The NOVA framework classifies foods by degree of processing rather than nutrients.
- In a large European cohort, each 10-percentage-point increase in UPF share of diet was associated with a 14% higher risk of all-cause mortality (observational).
UPFs and ADHD
- A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of 58,296 children and adolescents reported that higher junk-food intake (sweet drinks, sweets and related ultra-processed items) was associated with a 24% higher odds of ADHD like symptoms
Child Development – Multiple Studies 2023–2025
- Early taste and texture exposure in infancy shapes long-term food preferences. Introducing a variety of flavours and textures early increases vegetable acceptance later in childhood, while diets dominated by sweet or salty UPFs may limit willingness to try less intense flavours.
- Frequent sweet and salty snack intake in infancy/toddlerhood is linked to higher weight, an early marker of obesity risk.
- High UPF consumption in the toddler years is common and strongly predicts continued high UPF intake later in childhood, reinforcing taste preferences for more intensely flavoured, processed foods.
Food Additives and Cancer Risk – NutriNet-Santé, 2024
- E471 (mono- and diglycerides): ↑46% prostate cancer, ↑15% overall cancer
- E407 (carrageenan): ↑32% breast cancer Mechanism: gut inflammation and microbiome disruption
Emulsifiers and chronic disease
- Cardiovascular disease: In the French NutriNet-Santé cohort (The BMJ, 2023), higher intakes of several emulsifiers (e.g., polysorbates, carboxymethylcellulose, carrageenan, mono- and diglycerides) were associated with increased CVD risk.
- Cancer: A 2024 PLOS Medicine analysis of the same cohort found that greater exposure to several emulsifiers, including E471 (mono- and diglycerides) and E407 (carrageenan), was associated with higher overall and site-specific cancer risks.
- Biological plausibility: Experimental work shows some emulsifiers can alter the gut microbiome and increase intestinal permeability, supporting a mechanistic link (preclinical evidence).
E471 and Cardiovascular Disease – Nature Medicine, 2023
- Emulsifier E471 increases intestinal permeability (“leaky gut”)
- ↑28% higher risk of cardiovascular events with regular consumption
- Alters lipid absorption and promotes arterial plaque formation
- Found in 95% of packaged breads and 70% of ice creams
Artificial Food Dyes and Child Behaviour – Southampton Study & Meta-analyses
- The EU/UK require a label warning that the following colours “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children” when present: E102 Tartrazine, E104 Quinoline Yellow, E110 Sunset Yellow FCF, E122 Carmoisine, E124 Ponceau 4R, E129 Allura Red AC.
- A 2007 double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 3- and 8-year-olds found that drinks containing mixtures of artificial food colours and sodium benzoate significantly increased hyperactivity compared to placebo. While regulatory review (EFSA) characterised the effect as small and variable, it confirmed that behavioural changes were detectable in children from the general population.
Carrageenan and Gut Inflammation – Environmental Health Perspectives, 2023
- Degrades into poligeenan in acidic gut environment, a known carcinogen
- Triggers inflammatory bowel disease markers in 40% of regular consumers
- Disrupts tight junction proteins = increased intestinal permeability
- Banned in infant formula in EU due to safety concerns
Artificial Sweeteners and Type 2 Diabetes – BMJ 2022; NutriNet 2023
- The WHO 2023 guideline advises against using non-sugar sweeteners for weight control due to possible increased risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, based on observational evidence.
- A longitudinal study of over 36,600 Australians followed for nearly 14 years found that consuming just one artificially sweetened soft drink per day was associated with a 38% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, even after adjusting for body weight and lifestyle factors
Cumulative Additive Exposure – Food & Chemical Toxicology, 2024
- Food additive mixtures complicate safety
- A PLOS Medicine (2025) study found two common mixtures of additives, such as sweeteners, emulsifiers, and citric acids, were linked with higher Type 2 diabetes risk in 108,000 adults, suggesting cocktail effects may pose unique risks.
- Current safety testing misses real-world exposure
- Regulatory assessments evaluate each additive in isolation, yet consumers commonly ingest complex mixtures, meaning synergistic or antagonistic effects are not accounted for.
- Science says “cocktail effects” are plausible
- Food safety research acknowledges that combinations of additives, even below individual safety levels, may amplify harm, especially via gut dysbiosis or metabolic disruption.
- Regulators are responding
- EFSA has acknowledged the limitations of current chemical risk assessments and initiated new frameworks to better evaluate combined chemical exposures.