Health star rating website for food and beverages disappears 24 hours after being published online

Updated

A new website launched this week, with detailed information on Australia's new front-of-pack labelling system for food and beverages, disappeared less than 24 hours after it was launched.

The Health Department says a draft version of the site was put up in error, but health groups say there was nothing wrong with it.

The vexed issue of food labelling has become increasingly fractious in recent months.

An agreement to implement the system was reached in the middle of last year, but the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) has raised concerns about the cost of implementing the scheme.

The star rating system is designed to give consumers an indication of the nutritional value of food or beverages.

It gives each product a rating out of five stars, with the healthiest products scoring more stars according to an algorithm that assesses the nutrients.

The scheme is voluntary for two years, and would then be reassessed depending on how widespread its usage becomes.

The new website, www.healthstarrating.com.au, had information on the labelling system, as well as a calculator that a product's nutrient value could be plugged into to find out what star rating it would receive.

That calculator relies on an algorithm that has been the subject of much negotiation, particularly around how it assesses dairy products.

A spokeswoman for the Health Department told the ABC the website was put up in draft form in error on Wednesday night, and will not be active again until the proper version is ready to be published.

"Due to an inadvertent error the draft web page went live. This error is now being rectified."

Health organisation says site was ready for consumers to use

Stakeholders received an email to alert them that the new website was active from lunchtime on Wednesday.

Various groups, including the consumer group Choice and the Heart Foundation applauded the move.

Public Health Association CEO Michael Moore says he could see no problem with the site when he looked at it over several hours on Wednesday.

"The website came up and I checked through it and thought it was really going to be useful for industry who wants to use it and for consumers that can then understand about the healthiness of their food," he told the ABC.

"And then of course I was disappointed about seven or eight hours later when it came down. I just thought it was a technical reason at first.

"I have heard a number of reasons as to why it was taken down but it seems to be that whatever the shenanigans behind it were, what we really want to see is the website put up again.

"We want to see that industry can apply the health star rating to food as they want to. It's a voluntary system and that way consumers can understand how healthy their food is."

Mr Moore has been working on the issue for two years and he felt the site that was put up was effective.

"All I've heard along the way is that this (website) was a draft and this just doesn't make sense to me.

"It looked good, it looked effective, it would work and industry could begin the process of using it."

Government says website launch would be 'premature'

A spokeswoman for Assistant Minister for Health Fiona Nash said the health star rating system was not yet in place, so putting up a website would be confusing for consumers.

"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 ABC was told in a statement.

"The results of the cost-benefit analysis are to be presented at the next meeting of the Forum in June.

"The cost-benefit analysis and the website will be discussed when the Forum next meets.

"A website at this stage would be premature given that the cost-benefit analysis has not been done. It is prudent to wait for the finalisation of the cost-benefit analysis to fully inform decision making on this process."

Industry backs Government on need for cost-benefit analysis

The Australian Food and Grocery Council says the labelling system will cost $200 million to implement.

The AFGC would not comment on the status of the website.

"Any additional regulation carries a cost to business and the AFGC has consistently argued for a robust and credible cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken," an AFGC spokesman told the ABC.

"It is particularly relevant in the wake of the SPC decision that any additional cost to food companies needs to be closely scrutinised.

"The full impact of the proposed scheme has not yet been fully assessed and we support the Assistant Health Minister Senator Nash's decision to implement a broader cost-benefit analysis.

"Once the cost-benefit analysis has been completed, companies can make a proper assessment of the proposed scheme."

The Beverages Council of Australia told the ABC: "The beverages industry supports the work the tripartite FOPL Project Committee has completed to date.

"We do note that there is still some work to be done, not least of which is the cost-benefit analysis to commence.

"Like other sectors, we want to ensure that the benefits in implementing the system outweigh the costs.

"The Beverages Council and its members will continue to work with the other key stakeholders on the process."

Know more about this story? Email investigations@abc.net.au

Topics: health-policy, health, food-and-beverage, industry, business-economics-and-finance, federal-government, government-and-politics, australia

First posted