Health and nutrition claims on packaged food packs are an effective marketing tool as they emphasise one positive aspect of a food without mention of any potentially negative aspects (e.g. nutrient content claim: “High in calcium”; general-level health claim: “Contains calcium for healthy bones and teeth”; high-level health claim: “High in calcium to reduce the risk of osteoporosis”). Health claims can create cognitive biases wherein consumers report stronger positive evaluations and purchase intentions for products with health claims compared to identical products without claims. This is concerning since studies have shown that the presence of a claim, and particularly nutrition claims, may have little relation to overall product healthiness. Recent studies suggest that front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) can attenuate the cognitive biases created by health claims. The aim of this qualitative study was to contribute to this small evidence base and explore how consumers trade-off between conflicting health claims and FoPLs, and assess whether certain FoPLs are more effective at eliminating the cognitive biases created by health claims. Eighty-five males and females, who ranged in age (from 10 to 46+) and socioeconomic status, took part in 10 focus groups in Perth, Western Australia. Participants were shown images of mock food packs featuring various health claims and FoPLs (including the Daily Intake Guide, the Multiple Traffic Lights and the Health Star Rating). All mock foods were designed to be unhealthy (i.e. with a Health Star Rating of 2). Participants were provided with broad discussion prompts to elicit their spontaneous thoughts about the products represented by the mock packs. The discrepancy between the unhealthy FoPL and the positive health claim was noted by many participants (including children), particularly when the Health Star Rating was applied. These results illustrate the important role of FoPLs in providing consumers with an objective indicator of product healthiness.