Snack bars are convenient to put in kids’ lunchboxes or to keep on hand when you need a quick snack. But do they stack up to their healthy image? When we calculated the new “health star” ratings for 35 snack bars, we found only 9 that earned 3 stars or more.
Join more than 100,000 members today and you’ll get:
Earlier this year the government gave the go-ahead to the health star system for rating food. This voluntary front-of-pack (FOP) label is a similar concept to the energy-efficiency star ratings you find on appliances and it’s designed to give you “at-a-glance” information about the nutritional value of packaged food. The ratings range from half a star to 5 stars – the more stars the better.
The health star system is based on nutrient-profiling criteria developed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. It takes into account the “positive” as well as the “negative” aspects of a food.
The negative aspects are the nutrients associated with increased risk of chronic diseases: the food’s energy content, saturated fat, total sugars and sodium. The positive aspects are the food’s dietary fibre and protein – and also how much fruit, vegetables, nuts or legumes (including seeds and coconut) it has.
The star rating is based on 100g or 100ml of the product. Different nutrient thresholds are used for beverages, dairy foods, oils and spreads, and cheese products.
Many snack bars are high-energy snacks and shouldn’t be considered everyday eating (see “Energy hit”).
Their high energy, saturated fat and sugar meant most of the bars in our survey rated less than 3 stars.
Become a Gold or Silver member to find out more about how the bars rated.
We asked Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Professor of Population Nutrition at the University of Auckland and a member of the New Zealand Front of Pack Labelling Advisory Group, to comment on our ratings. She thought there was a good spread of stars across the category, so it should be easy for consumers to identify healthier choices.
“The positive aspects of a food can offset its negative aspects. So the food is being rated on its overall nutritional value,” Professor Ni Mhurchu said.
This can explain why the Quaker Nut Bar has a high rating: “Total fat, unlike saturated fat, isn’t strongly associated with the risk of chronic disease so it’s not considered when calculating the health star rating. Similarly, a high-sugar product may achieve a high rating if the majority of the sugar comes from fruit and it’s high in protein and fibre.”
We agree that having health stars prominently displayed on a food’s packaging will make it easier for consumers to identify healthier choices. But we have several concerns about how it will work.
The health star system is voluntary. Manufacturers can choose whether to use the health star system on all their products, on selected products (those with a “better” rating), or not to use it at all.
The two main supermarket chains here have announced they’ll adopt the ratings for their home-brand products. Sanitarium, Nestle and Griffins have also announced they’ll use the health star system. But there’ve been no such announcements from other Kiwi food manufacturers – so it’s possible you won’t be able to compare all the options on a shop’s shelves.
The Australian government has said that if there isn’t widespread uptake of the health star system in five years, it’ll consider making the system mandatory. Our government hasn’t indicated whether it intends to do the same.
Some consumer behaviour experts were surprised when the health star system was given the go ahead without any robust comparative research. Dr Ninya Maubach, from the Department of Marketing at the University of Otago, says this is totally inadequate. She is particularly concerned that no study here or in Australia has tested the final labelling format announced in June.
Dr Maubach recently published a study that compared different ways of identifying nutritional profiles, including a type of health stars label and “traffic lights”. The findings showed most people could recognise healthy products through either the stars or the traffic lights. But the traffic lights were much more likely to help people recognise less healthy choices.
The National Institute for Health Innovation at the University of Auckland is recruiting people to take part in its Starlight study. Starlight will use a smartphone app to find out what effect different types of FOP labelling, including the health star rating, have on food choices.
To be useful to consumers, any food rating system must be monitored and evaluated. Professor Ni Mhurchu said monitoring should look at whether the system was being taken up for enough products, whether the foods using the star system became healthier over time, and what effect the system had on consumer choice.
The Ministry for Primary Industries said this was on the cards. Although details of the monitoring and evaluation programme were still being developed, it would include an evaluation of consumer recognition, use and understanding of the system as well as how widely adopted by food manufacturers.
The nearest comparison to the health stars is the “guiding stars” shelf label used in supermarkets in the US and Canada. Products get points from positive nutrients and lose them for negative ones, and are rated from 0 to 3 stars. Research recently published in Public Health Nutrition found that sales of less nutritious foods declined after the shelf labels’ introduction; but there was no significant difference in the sale of more nutritious foods.
The system isn’t only about health star ratings. Product labels can show other information – and manufacturers are being encouraged to show all of this:
However, manufacturers can “pick and mix” what they show.
For example, on small packs (such as some confectionery) manufacturers can use just the energy icon – they don’t have to display the health star rating.
Manufacturers can also vary how a nutrient icon displays its information. On most foods it is to be shown per 100g or 100ml, but if the product’s intended to be consumed as one serving or is sold as a multi-pack it may be shown per pack. A “low” and “high” claim may also be made if the product meets the criteria for nutrient-content claims set out in the Food Standards Code.
Become a Gold or Silver member to view the product comparison tables.
If you’re buying snack bars, look for products with less than 600 kilojoules per bar. That’s about the equivalent of a banana – although a banana will fill you up a lot more than a snack bar. What’s more, it gives you extra fibre, vitamins and minerals.
17 bars in our survey packed more than 600 kilojoules per bar. Bumper Bar Apricot Chocolate had a whopping 1420 kilojoules, partly because of its large (75g) size.
Research shows providing interpretive nutritional information on the front of packaged foods helps consumers understand the foods’ nutritional content. It also provides an incentive for manufacturers to reduce the saturated fat, sugar and sodium in packaged foods.
The introduction of “front of pack” (FOP) labelling was a key recommendation of the 2011 independent review of food-labelling law and policy in Australia and New Zealand. The review also recommended adopting multiple use traffic-light labelling – a system that gives a green (low), amber (medium), or red (high) symbol to indicate nutrient levels. But while ministers in Australia and New Zealand agreed to support FOP labelling, traffic-light symbols were given the thumbs down.
The health star rating was an alternative developed by a committee of Australian government, industry, health and consumer groups (including the Australian consumer organisation Choice).
In June this year, our government announced it would follow Australia’s lead and introduce the health star system here.
We bought 43 snack bars from supermarkets. We calculated the health star rating using the calculator provided by the Ministry for Primary Industries.
We found it wasn't always possible to calculate the health star rating from the product’s nutrition information panel and ingredients list. For example, information on the amount of dietary fibre and the percentage of fruit and nuts isn’t required (unless a nutrient claim’s being made for the product or fruit or nuts are the main characterising ingredient).
Where information was missing, we contacted the manufacturer to fill in the gaps. This wasn’t always successful. The makers of Bumper Bar, Cadbury, and Mother Earth products declined to provide the information we needed. Progressive Enterprises was unable to help on some of its products because the information wasn’t available from its third-party suppliers.
As well as calculating the number of health stars for a product, we used "traffic light" symbols to show its fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium. If you see a red light, you know the food is high in something you may be trying to cut down on. Green means the food has low amounts of it; orange fits somewhere in between.
Our criteria have been developed by UK health agencies.
To help us get a fair deal for all New Zealanders, you can make a donation or bequest. We’ll use your contribution to investigate consumer issues and work for positive change.
This information is available to Consumer members only.