Most nutrition labelling research examines the influence of various forms of nutrition labelling in isolation. However, consumers make food choice decisions in environments featuring numerous forms of informational stimuli that can be inconsistent in their messaging. Two forms of nutrition information that often appear together on the front of food packages are front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) and health claims. There is the potential for these different forms of nutrition information to provide contradictory information, which can confuse consumers and result in compromised purchase decisions. To date, there has been limited research to guide policy makers in their regulatory decisions relating to the co-existence of FoPLs and HCs on food packages. The present study addressed this gap by administering a discrete choice experiment to 2,069 Australians aged 10+ years (equal gender split and an intentional skew towards respondents of lower socioeconomic status). Survey respondents were exposed to various combinations of FoPLs (Health Star Rating, Daily Intake Guide, Multiple Traffic Lights) and health claims (nutrient, general, and higher level) on products from four different food categories (cereal, yoghurt, pizza, and cookies) that each had unhealthy, moderately healthy, and healthy variations. Overall, the presence of a FoPL alone was best able to improve the healthiness of choices relative to when a health claim was present on-pack (with or without a FoPL). Of the three FOPLs tested, the Health Star Rating was especially effective in improving the healthiness of choices when used in isolation and/or when used in combination with a health claim. The results highlight the importance of providing governments with information relating to the effectiveness of different FoPLs when used in conjunction with other forms of nutrition information to assist them to (i) select the most appropriate FoPLs for wide-scale use and (ii) regulate the use of health claims.