By Tom Ryan
Hannaford Brothers says its nutritional rating system has been a success, particularly in steering purchases in the expansive packaged-food section of the store, including cereals, soups and breads.
 |
| Hannaford Bros.' Guiding Stars shelf labels point consumers to more nutritious product choices. |
The system called Guiding Stars rates the nutritional value of the grocery items in the store on a scale of zero to three stars, with three representing the healthiest products. The ratings are prominently displayed on shelf price tags.
After analyzing a year's worth of sales data, the northeastern supermarket chain, which is owned by Delhaize Group, found that customers tended to buy leaner cuts of meat, according to The New York Times. Sales of ground beef with stars on their labels increased 7 percent, and sales of chicken that had a star rating rose 5 percent. Sales of ground beef with no stars dropped by five percent; sales of chicken with no stars declined three percent.
Similarly, sales of whole milk (no stars) declined by four percent, while sales of fat-free milk (three stars) increased one percent. Sales of fruits and vegetables, however, remained about the same as before the ratings were introduced. All fresh produce received stars.
Caren Epstein, a spokeswoman for Hannaford, said the grocer wasn't surprised that the Guiding Stars system was most successful with packaged goods, since many of those products are packed with health claims.
"When you are looking at 100 different cereals, that's where you need help," she told the Times. "People already knew that fruits and vegetables are good for them. This isn't exactly a news flash."
The ratings were based on criteria established by Hannaford's scientific panel, which includes nutrition experts from the University of North Carolina, Dartmouth School of Medicine, Tufts University, Food Nutrition & Policy Consultants, University of California at Davis, University of Southern Maine and Harvard University.
Hannaford's formula used data from a product's nutrition facts panel and the ingredients list, and credited a food for having vitamins and minerals, fiber and whole grains. The system took points away for trans fats, saturated fats, cholesterol, added sugars and added sodium. Twenty-eight percent of the 25,500 items in the store received one star or more.
"I have to say, I'm thrilled," Lisa A. Sutherland, assistant professor of pediatrics and a nutrition scientist at Dartmouth Medical School, who helped devise the ratings system, told the Times. "They were pretty much what I would have expected with an objective system that wasn't designed to promote or negate one food or another."
"This is probably positive news," said Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, who wanted to see more data before reaching a conclusion. "I'm surprised that providing such little information would make a difference in consumer behavior, but I'm delighted that it does."
Mr. Brownell noted that there is a long history of failure for nutrition education programs, in part because they compete in an environment "that provides massive inducement to eat unhealthy foods." Such foods, he said, tend to be cheaper and more heavily marketed than healthier foods.
Discussion Questions: What do you make of the success of Hannaford's Guiding Stars program, especially in driving sales of healthier options in meat, dairy and the overall packaged foods section? What are the lessons for others in Hannaford's experience?