It’s been revealed that federal, state and territory governments committed $11 million to the Health Star Rating System before a cost benefit analysis was performed and despite being advised it didn’t comply with best practice guidelines.
The Health Star Rating system, designed to assist consumers in making healthier food purchasing decisions, has been surrounded by controversy this year, with ministerial adviser Alistair Furnival resigning over a conflict of interest, and Assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash being criticised for pulling down the Health Star website less than a day after it went live.
According to the Australian, Nash, who claimed the website was a draft that went live inadvertently, was sent a ministerial submission giving her up to seven days’ notice of her department’s intention to launch the website.
The submission was released under Freedom of Information and shows that governments had, as of 29 January, spent $2.2 million on the project and had allocated $8.8 million to it over three years.
This is despite the Office of Best Practice Regulation deciding in January that the launching the Health Star Rating calculator was “non-compliant with the COAG [Council of Australian Governments] best practice regulation guidelines” because no regulation impact statement had been performed.
According to the Australian, a spokesperson for Nash said she had sought the Governance Forum on Food Regulation’s approval to have an impact statement prepared, but was unsuccessful.
It was announced yesterday (16 April) that muesli brand, Monster Health Food Co, has become the first company in Australia to roll out the new front of pack labelling scheme across its range of products, but there are still a number of concerns surrounding the scheme, including how it will be implemented and monitored, and what the core messages to consumers will be.