This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/10/food-rating-website-pulled-down-by-abbott-government

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Food rating website pulled down by Abbott government Food rating website pulled down by Abbott government
(7 months later)
A healthy food rating website approved by the state and federal ministerial forum and designed to help consumers interpret nutrition information on packaged food has been pulled down after intervention by the assistant health minister’s office.A healthy food rating website approved by the state and federal ministerial forum and designed to help consumers interpret nutrition information on packaged food has been pulled down after intervention by the assistant health minister’s office.
A spokesperson for minister Fiona Nash’s office confirmed she intervened to stop the website because it was “premature”, given the rating system was not yet in place and that a full cost benefit analysis for industry and government had not been done. The site was live for just a few hours last Friday.A spokesperson for minister Fiona Nash’s office confirmed she intervened to stop the website because it was “premature”, given the rating system was not yet in place and that a full cost benefit analysis for industry and government had not been done. The site was live for just a few hours last Friday.
The spokesperson said once the analysis had been completed, state and federal ministers will again consider the system at the next ministerial forum meeting in June.The spokesperson said once the analysis had been completed, state and federal ministers will again consider the system at the next ministerial forum meeting in June.
“A website at this stage of the process would be confusing to consumers as it would indicate to consumers that a Health Star Rating system was up and running,” Nash said in a statement on Monday.“A website at this stage of the process would be confusing to consumers as it would indicate to consumers that a Health Star Rating system was up and running,” Nash said in a statement on Monday.
“It was unanimously agreed at the ministerial and governance forum on food regulation (the Forum) in December, that a cost benefit analysis needed to be undertaken to ensure sufficient rigour in the process and that industry impacts were fully considered.”“It was unanimously agreed at the ministerial and governance forum on food regulation (the Forum) in December, that a cost benefit analysis needed to be undertaken to ensure sufficient rigour in the process and that industry impacts were fully considered.”
The website contained a calculator which provided a star rating system based on the ingredients and nutrient content of a food item.The website contained a calculator which provided a star rating system based on the ingredients and nutrient content of a food item.
The website argued the system was needed because an independent report, Labelling Logic – Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy (2011), recommended an interpretive front-of-pack labelling scheme be developed in Australia to help shoppers easily understand and compare nutrition information.The website argued the system was needed because an independent report, Labelling Logic – Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy (2011), recommended an interpretive front-of-pack labelling scheme be developed in Australia to help shoppers easily understand and compare nutrition information.
“This would help shoppers to make an informed nutritional choice when selecting a packaged food,” the website said.“This would help shoppers to make an informed nutritional choice when selecting a packaged food,” the website said.
Energy, saturated fat, total sugar, sodium, fibre, protein, and fruit and vegetable content were all taken into account in the calculator, though some of these are excluded for specific food categories.Energy, saturated fat, total sugar, sodium, fibre, protein, and fruit and vegetable content were all taken into account in the calculator, though some of these are excluded for specific food categories.
Guardian Australia has located key files still available online. The entire site is still viewable in Google’s cache of websites, while key documents including guidelines for industry on how to calculate ratings and the spreadsheet for calculating ratings are still available at their original locations.Guardian Australia has located key files still available online. The entire site is still viewable in Google’s cache of websites, while key documents including guidelines for industry on how to calculate ratings and the spreadsheet for calculating ratings are still available at their original locations.
The health star rating industry guide gives examples of calculating the rating for different food products, with chocolate milk receiving two stars, a fruit and nut muesli bar receiving two and a half, dairy spread receiving two and a half, and a supreme pizza receiving two stars.The health star rating industry guide gives examples of calculating the rating for different food products, with chocolate milk receiving two stars, a fruit and nut muesli bar receiving two and a half, dairy spread receiving two and a half, and a supreme pizza receiving two stars.
A spokesman for the Australian Food and Grocery Council said for the industry to invest $200m in an environment when food companies such as SPC were trouble, it was appropriate to get a full cost benefit analysis before committing the money. A spokesman for the Australian Food and Grocery Council said for the industry to invest $200m in an environment when food companies such as SPC were trouble, it was appropriate to get a full cost benefit analysis before committing the money.
“This is about changing consumer behaviour and there is no evidence yet that this system will change consumer behaviour.”“This is about changing consumer behaviour and there is no evidence yet that this system will change consumer behaviour.”
The spokesman said the calculator threw up anomalies such as a chiko roll rated higher than a bottle of water.The spokesman said the calculator threw up anomalies such as a chiko roll rated higher than a bottle of water.
The spokesman would not comment on allegations that Nash’s chief of staff, Alastair Furnival, had allegedly intervened on behalf of the minister. Furnival is a former spokesman for Kraft/Cadbury and was chair of Australian Public Affairs, which is registered as a lobbyist for the Australian Beverages Council and Mondelez.The spokesman would not comment on allegations that Nash’s chief of staff, Alastair Furnival, had allegedly intervened on behalf of the minister. Furnival is a former spokesman for Kraft/Cadbury and was chair of Australian Public Affairs, which is registered as a lobbyist for the Australian Beverages Council and Mondelez.
Michael Moore, chief executive officer of the Public Health Association, was the co-chair of the technical group that developed the algorithm for the calculator. Moore is a former independent who was a health minister with an ACT Liberal minority government.Michael Moore, chief executive officer of the Public Health Association, was the co-chair of the technical group that developed the algorithm for the calculator. Moore is a former independent who was a health minister with an ACT Liberal minority government.
“The issue for some parts of the industry was that some companies would benefit from having healthier foods,” Moore said.“The issue for some parts of the industry was that some companies would benefit from having healthier foods,” Moore said.
“We were very comfortable with the system and there was an oversight committee to deal with anomalies.”“We were very comfortable with the system and there was an oversight committee to deal with anomalies.”
Guardian Australia used the calculator spreadsheet provided on the website to rank a packet of chips and a block of plain chocolate. The chocolate received only half a star, and the chips received either two stars or three and a half depending on if extra points for fruit and vegetable content were awarded.Guardian Australia used the calculator spreadsheet provided on the website to rank a packet of chips and a block of plain chocolate. The chocolate received only half a star, and the chips received either two stars or three and a half depending on if extra points for fruit and vegetable content were awarded.
The website, which calculates a star rating for packaged foods, was agreed on by the ministerial council amongst federal, state and New Zealand governments at two meetings last year.The website, which calculates a star rating for packaged foods, was agreed on by the ministerial council amongst federal, state and New Zealand governments at two meetings last year.