HOW THE FUCK IS THIS 4 STARS HEALTH RATING ON A BOX OF CHOCOLATE MILO CEREAL???

HOW THE FUCK IS THIS 4 STARS HEALTH RATING ON A BOX OF CHOCOLATE MILO CEREAL???

>health star rating
be the own judge of the healthiness of food.
nutritional values and portion sizes
doesn't take a genius to figure it out mate.

No idea. I've never heard of a "Health Star Rating" so I assume it's made up and then Nestle have attempted to make it look like something "official" to mis-lead idiots.

never trust the tick, m8.

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-tick-that-broke-heart-of-foundation/story-e6frg6n6-1226145340644
>THE moment the Heart Foundation accepted $300,000 a year from McDonald's to put its Tick on food such as the Filet-O-Fish and chicken McNuggets, the program was doomed

>Nestle have attempted to make it look like something "official" to mis-lead idiots.
it's very clever. in the Netherlands you have pic related, which is an 'seal of approval' initiative formed by no one other than Unilever.

picture reads left to right 'healthier choice within this product group' and 'more conscious choice within this product group'.

They pull this shit off by hiring 'independent' contractors operating under different names to mask the fact that they're the own judge of their products.

Like I said, judge your own food.

All "Chocolate" flavored cereals aren't that bad for you because they are merely using cocoa to flavor, not chocolate.

Some people just can't handle a morning cereal that is a bran fibre ass explosion.

They're definitely not 4/5 healthy though

You people are fucking idiots, it's a standard printed on brands sold in australia

Go to any fucking cereal box or anything and they've got the star rating, regardless of brand

>government program created with food industry and NGOs
>Ok that's fine so long as it's fair--
>Confection [Candy] excluded in an agreement
Ok yea this system is just as garbage as any other that I have seen.

If you are an athlete sure it's healthy.
Have you ever seen those cereals commercial that are targeted towards moms not kids.
Feed your kids this shit that's 47% sugar every morning and your kid will have so much energy he will play football, tennis and be in advanced math

Is that 412 calories per 100g or for 30g?

Either way, that's a lot of sugar.

Well it's in the 100g column, so yeah it's anyone's guess really.

Oh silly me, I should have recognised it what with my extensive and comprehensive tour of Australian supermarkets.

>Oh silly me, I should have recognised it what with my extensive and comprehensive tour of Australian supermarkets.
hahahah you have to cut us some slack for not knowing everything about a country which is, in my case, on the opposite side of the planet.
also I'm not convinced it's so standardised as u wish it is

it's 4/100 stars

It's optional for companies to do of course. BECAUSE FORCING COMPANIES TO TELL PEOPLE HOW UNHEALTHY THEIR SHIT IS is just meannnn

~10g of sugar per 30g of cereal is about the norm, so it's not that much more

>80% healthy
>66% sugar
>40% cardboard
>4% other nutrients

>LOOK AT OUR 4.0 STARS

kek, even they're surprised by it

>190%

I forgot
>10% bullshit

The health rating system is absolutely fucking retarded. Butter has like 0.5 stars or something. Like yea if you eat the whole block sure.

The star rating system gives questionable items high stars and it doesn't take into consideration how other items are used. I bet even white rice probably has three stars.

Why is there a cricket player on a cereal box? It's a literal meme sport

>40.5g sugar per 100g of cereal.
It is nearly half sugar by mass, user. Over 60% if counting sugars and starches...

May as well just snort powdered doughnuts.

I think doughnuts have less sugar than that...

but they still have assloads of sugar, thus being more sugary than chocolate itself.

Dark chocolate cherries get 1.5
Chocolate itself probs has a better rating

Butter is 50% saturated fat. You shouldn't even uses added fats, you can get all you need from whole foods.

I'm guessing it's because it's made of whole grain and the serving size is tiny as fuck so it looks low-calorie and low-sugar.

Kek

4 stars means likely to survive eating recommended amount.
It's legit healthy

"Points are allocated based on the ingredients and amounts used in the Nutrition Information Panel on the package per 100g (or 100mL)"

This Milo cereal has 30g of sugar per 100g.

All Bran has 5 stars and 20g sugar per 100g.

Some garbage snack bar I found has 1 star and 40g sugar per 100g.

Seems reasonably consistent. I think they could have set the bar a little higher though. If something with less than 5g sugar per 100g (Cheerios) has the same star rating as something with 4 times as much, that's not a very good system.