THE Heart Foundation’s trademark health food label is under review 25 years after it was set up.
And its famous tick could eventually get the flick, if the review committee decides that the new health star rating system being rolled out by the Federal Government is sufficient.
It comes after My Kitchen Rules chef Pete Evans criticised the charity for endorsing unhealthy products, urging people to sign a petition against the tick that has more than 30,000 signatures.
The paleo diet advocate has questioned how it could hand out ticks on some products, such as frozen pizzas.
It was also lambasted in 2008 after temporarily giving particular McDonald’s products a tick in its bid to give consumers the healthiest option from the fast food giant’s menu.
But National Heart Foundation CEO Mary Barry said its decision to review the tick program has been underway since mid-year, before the recent commentary began.
Ms Barry said it was prompted by the 25th anniversary of the Tick and introduction of the new food labelling star system.
The foundation had advocated for, helped develop and supported the five-star system, she said.
“Should this system be successful and mandatory ... we could then consider the future of the tick.”
The review will take place over 12 months to see how the stars roll out and if the tick can complement or add value to it.
When asked if the star could replace the tick Ms Barry said it was a possibility.
The program was launched in 1989 on the back of a trend towards processed and packaged foods.
It set nutrition standards across food categories and gave consumers a clear symbol that indicated the healthier choice when compared to other similar foods.
“If you are going to the supermarket and there are half a dozen pasta sauces on the shelf, the one with the tick will have less salt and fat and more vegetables than others,” Ms Barry said.
It also led to companies to make their recipes healthier to gain a tick. Companies pay to be assessed and approved for the symbol.
Ms Barry said it brought in roughly $2.8 million a year and that was reinvested in running the program.
And its famous tick could eventually get the flick, if the review committee decides that the new health star rating system being rolled out by the Federal Government is sufficient.
It comes after My Kitchen Rules chef Pete Evans criticised the charity for endorsing unhealthy products, urging people to sign a petition against the tick that has more than 30,000 signatures.
The paleo diet advocate has questioned how it could hand out ticks on some products, such as frozen pizzas.
It was also lambasted in 2008 after temporarily giving particular McDonald’s products a tick in its bid to give consumers the healthiest option from the fast food giant’s menu.
But National Heart Foundation CEO Mary Barry said its decision to review the tick program has been underway since mid-year, before the recent commentary began.
Ms Barry said it was prompted by the 25th anniversary of the Tick and introduction of the new food labelling star system.
The foundation had advocated for, helped develop and supported the five-star system, she said.
“Should this system be successful and mandatory ... we could then consider the future of the tick.”
The review will take place over 12 months to see how the stars roll out and if the tick can complement or add value to it.
When asked if the star could replace the tick Ms Barry said it was a possibility.
The program was launched in 1989 on the back of a trend towards processed and packaged foods.
It set nutrition standards across food categories and gave consumers a clear symbol that indicated the healthier choice when compared to other similar foods.
“If you are going to the supermarket and there are half a dozen pasta sauces on the shelf, the one with the tick will have less salt and fat and more vegetables than others,” Ms Barry said.
It also led to companies to make their recipes healthier to gain a tick. Companies pay to be assessed and approved for the symbol.
Ms Barry said it brought in roughly $2.8 million a year and that was reinvested in running the program.
