• 1.04K Posts
  • 810 Comments
Joined 3 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年6月11日

help-circle


























  • The Health Star Rating system is corrupted and unhelpful.

    From https://theconversation.com/parents-find-health-star-ratings-confusing-and-unhelpful-we-need-a-better-food-labelling-system-264881

    The Health Star Rating’s own consumer research found 74% of consumers do not understand that the rating cannot be used to compare dissimilar products.

    There’s no reason it shouldn’t be comparable across categories, either. I think originally it was designed so to be, and then the lobbyists got to it. People’s intake of each category isn’t some fixed ratio, and how are they supposed to get a signal to cut down on one category if they can’t compare products across categories?

    Even if people are aware that products can only be compared within categories, do we expect everyone to know what those categories are and which one any particular product fits into? The HSR panel doesn’t contain any category information!

    From https://theconversation.com/australias-food-labelling-system-isnt-working-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275673

    So, is there an alternative?

    Yes – warning labels.

    Using simple statements or symbols, warning labels are designed to inform consumers if a food product is high in fat, sugar or salt. In future, they may also indicate whether a product is an ultra-processed food.

    A global study published in late 2025 suggests warning labels are the most effective way to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods. This is compared to other ranking-style labelling schemes such as Health Star Ratings.

    Seems like a pretty simple and reasonable approach to me. Also, it seems like it can be applied comparably across all categories of packaged food.

    I can see people arguing that an incremental scale like the HSR allows for companies to compete on small differences (unlike a simple binary ‘high in sugar’ warning label) and that little differences would help over time. I’m pretty sceptical of that, though, and I think encouraging people to eat fewer chocolate biscuits is likely more important than slightly reducing the amount of sugar in the biscuits. (If anyone’s seen good research on the topic, let me know!)

    It’s not like the ‘warning label’ approach stops people from making a comparison on the details anyway. If you see a ‘high in sugar’ label on something it might prompt you to check the nutrition panel to see just how much sugar is in that biscuit, and its competitors.










  • AZ locals. Let me know if I need to make any corrections to above.

    Good enough that I wouldn’t nitpick, except you explicitly asked 😆

    The President of Israel was invited to visit Australia. Large protests were announced across the country. The NSW government (the state Sydney is the capital of) passed draconian laws giving police broad powers and also limiting protesters ability to sue for assualt etc in special ‘zones’.

    Just to clarify a point…

    The new laws were passed for Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) very shortly after the Bondi massacre, and before the Herzog visit was announced. The laws allow the police commissioner, after a terrorist attack, to declare an area in which an ‘authorised protest’ can’t be held, and they can extend that for up to 90 days. An ‘authorised protest’ is when the protest organisers submit some paper work, and then protesters are legally protected to march on the road or block footpaths, etc. You can still have a public gathering regardless. The police commissioner made a declaration which covers central Sydney and eastward.

    Then, just two days before the rally, Minns declared the Herzog visit a ‘major event’. The major event declaration was under pre-existing law, and grants cops power to close roads, search people, limit the number of people and limit police civil liability for their actions within a declared zone. (No doubt they waited until two days before to impede legal challenges, though a challege was heard and rejected.)

    So yeah, to be totally (maybe unnecessarily) clear, the order of events is:

    1. NSW Government passes new draconian laws for Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD)
    2. Police commissioner makes a PARD covering central Sydney
    3. Herzog visit announced
    4. Large protests announced
    5. ‘Major event’ declared under pre-existing draconian laws, with area covering central Sydney
    6. Protest is held in Town Hall Square (Sydney, NSW) and the police get violent

    Sorry if you knew all this already and had just simplified for brevity!