'Traffic light' health labels on food to tackle Britain's obesity epidemic

[Northerner]

A new set of food labels highlighting the ?health value? of every item of food could be on the way.
Although four out of five food products already have some form of labelling, manufacturers and supermarket chains use widely different systems to illustrate the health content.
With obesity becoming a worrying issue, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will tomorrow launch a 12-week consultation to devise a single system showing how much fat, salt, sugar and calories the foods contain.

Mr Lansley says his preferred option is for a system which incorporates a ?traffic light? code, with red for unhealthy, green for healthy and yellow for average.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tains-obesity-epidemic.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[Pumper_Sue]

Well whats new? The traffic light system was being used back in the 70's or 80's. Only difference it had all the carb values in it.
This was used by the then British Diabetic assoc. I still have the book packed away in one of the boxes from my move last year.

 

[Northerner]

Well whats new? The traffic light system was being used back in the 70's or 80's. Only difference it had all the carb values in it.
This was used by the then British Diabetic assoc. I still have the book packed away in one of the boxes from my move last year.

Given that there are 2.5m diabetics in the country, I wonder if pressure can be brought to bear to include full carb values on packaging, or if Lansley and his advisors will be oblivious to the usefulness of this 🙄

How about everyone emailing DUK to make sure they pursue this possibility?

info@diabetes.org.uk

 

[heasandford]

What bothers me is that if this becomes the norm, most companies will then stop putting the more detailed (incuding carbohydrates) information on the pack at all, unless it is a legal requirement, which as far as I know, it is not. (the law says that if you do put it on, it has to be in a certain format etc)

Incidentally, the 'Sugar' content referred to also does not include polyols, those nasty sugars sometimes used in 'diabetic' foods

 

[Tina63]

When my son was first diagnosed, I became obsessed with looking at the nutritional labels on food for the carb value and it very quickly became obvious that this was only available on the back of the packaging in very small writing, whereas the calories, fat, salt etc were all on the front in much bigger writing and more eye catching. I found that immensely frustrating and really felt a letter coming on to the Prime Minister to complain! Of course I did nothing.

We encountered too ignorance at restaurants (Harvester and Hungry Horse) about nutritional information in their food, when requesting carb content. The best the Harvester could provide was their sheet advising of known allergy items and food suitable for vegetarians. I found all the information I needed when I got home on their websites and felt like going straight back there and shoving it under their noses, but again did nothing.

I still find it unbelievable that with such a high number of diabetics in the country that this information is almost hidden on the packaging. If I forget to take my glasses shopping I am really struggling to make out the values, especially on smaller items like pots of yoghurt for example.

It will also be interesting to see exactly how they grade various food items. What is unhealthy for an older adult with a heart condition for example, may in fact be very much recommended for a growing toddler. It's not going to be easy surely for them to decide what is and isn't healthy across the board. Maybe they should just ban all ready meals, processed, canned and dried food and we all go back to keeping chickens and a cow to milk and grow our own vegetables! Now look what you've done, you've got me started now!!!

 

[Northerner]

...this information is almost hidden on the packaging. If I forget to take my glasses shopping I am really struggling to make out the values, especially on smaller items like pots of yoghurt for example...

This is precisely my problem with the tiny writing on the back of packets! I don't usually carry my glasses around, although I do have a small magnifier I keep in my pocket, but it shouldn't be necessary

I wrote this poem on the subject:

Please Mr Food Man

I spy with my little eye,
A hundred food labels that just pass me by
Perhaps, Mr Food Man, you could explain why
The writing’s so small as if hiding a lie.

In bright coloured letters, and bold as can be
The packet says ‘I’m healthy! And almost fat-free!!
But in tiny black letters you can hardly see
Is an excess of carbs that’s harmful to me.

Oh please, Mr Food Man, I’m not being rude!
Why can’t you be honest in labelling food?
If this was America, you’d likely be sued
For hiding the facts with a method so crude.

So, buck your ideas up and please make it clear
That your food’s really healthy, we’ve nothing to fear!
It would make our lives easier and fill us with cheer,
And perhaps, if you did it, we’d buy you a beer!

(c) Northerner 2009)

 

[Monica]

The small writing on the back was exactly the reason I started wearing my "reading" glasses all the time

This does worry me, I so hope they don't stop the carb contents on packaging. I can't see the full carb content going in the "traffic light" system.

 

[DeusXM]

The problem is, to the general population and most nutritionists, carbs aren't seen as needing any particular information. Even the NHS isn't really that coherent on carbohydrates for people with diabetes.

The 'traffic light' system only highlights things that are decreed to be 'bad' - calories, fat, sugar, salt. There's also no context either. Something might have a 'good' amount of sugar, but if I eat 20 of them, then it's not good!

The traffic light system also conveniently moves the goalposts when an inconvenient truth flare up. Foods with high sugar are 'bad'...unless it's fruit, when suddenly, the same actual sugar becomes good, as if your body makes a differentiation between added and natural sugar. We're told to suddenly just suspend our disbelief rather than engage with the more pertinent question.

I can't see them removing the full nutritional information from the back of a packet (fairly sure it's legally required). What's frustrating though is the 'traffic light' system will lead to complacency. You'll just get people deciding that as long as the stuff in packets has a green dot on it, they can eat as much as they like and continue to eat factory produced rubbish, instead of actually making smart dietary choices and making their own meals.

 

[Northerner]

Some good points DeusXM 🙂 Perhaps what we should really be asking for is that the full nutritional information is not effectively 'hidden' by printing it in almost unreadable font sizes? I've always been surprised that the general public will accept the concept (and physical manifestations) of 'the small print' - why is it acceptable to print some very important information in tiny fonts - whether on food or legal documents or anything? Why is this not seen as an attempt to hide things that might detract from the fully visible marketing messages? I will be writing to Mr Lansley, I think 🙂

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

The problem is, to the general population and most nutritionists, carbs aren't seen as needing any particular information. Even the NHS isn't really that coherent on carbohydrates for people with diabetes.

...I can't see them removing the full nutritional information from the back of a packet (fairly sure it's legally required). What's frustrating though is the 'traffic light' system will lead to complacency. You'll just get people deciding that as long as the stuff in packets has a green dot on it, they can eat as much as they like and continue to eat factory produced rubbish, instead of actually making smart dietary choices and making their own meals.

Couldn't agree more!

The current 'traffic lights' are hopeless. In many cases the packaging designers opt to render the traffic lights all in one shade of the same colour where their product would be mostly 'red', while other quite questionable foodstuffs proudly display yellows and greens because the right questions are not being asked. And the leafy green stuff that people should be encouraged to eat more of - well that doesn't come in shiny full-colour printed packaging so doesn't get a traffic light on it at all.

 

[heasandford]

I was starting to wonder if I was being a bit scaremongering about the labelling, but the last lot of posts have clarified it beautifully!

Nutritional information is NOT a legal requirement on packaging, UNLESS there is a claim about the nutritional content ie low fat etc. However if the nutritional content is quoted, by law it has to be in a certain format and content, including carbohydrates. I assume therefore that if the traffic light system is used on the front, that constitutes nutritional labelling and then they also have to include the legal layout - somewhere!

The questions being asked are based on GDAs - guideline daily amounts, and the packaging people have no leeway on this.

However as previously said it is all too simplistic, density of calories and portion control seems to me to be a more useful guide, added to exercise.

I have emailed DUK, I encourage you all to do the same!

 

[heasandford]

this is the link for the consultative document if anyone wants to trawl through it!

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh.../@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_134051.pdf

page 20 tells you how to respond! and it has to be by 6/8/12

I am going to, but would a joint response from us have a better effect?

 

[Northerner]

this is the link for the consultative document if anyone wants to trawl through it!

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh.../@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_134051.pdf

page 20 tells you how to respond! and it has to be by 6/8/12

I am going to, but would a joint response from us have a better effect?

Thanks Alison, I will have a peruse! 🙂 Not sure whether a joint response would be better than lots of individual ones saying the same thing - I'm tending towards the latter, but would welcome others' opinions 🙂

 

[DeusXM]

In many cases the packaging designers opt to render the traffic lights all in one shade of the same colour where their product would be mostly 'red', while other quite questionable foodstuffs proudly display yellows and greens because the right questions are not being asked.

Let's also not forget the old wheeze about quoting figures for a portion size that's physically impossible to offer. My mum's got a long-standing joke about portion sizing - "this cake serves 10, providing two people don't want any pudding".

 

[Northerner]

Let's also not forget the old wheeze about quoting figures for a portion size that's physically impossible to offer. My mum's got a long-standing joke about portion sizing - "this cake serves 10, providing two people don't want any pudding".

There are so many deceptions, which is why it's not a good idea to let the food industry regulate itself What about those things you sometimes get when it gives the values per 100g but doesn't tell you what the object weighs! 🙄

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Let's also not forget the old wheeze about quoting figures for a portion size that's physically impossible to offer. My mum's got a long-standing joke about portion sizing - "this cake serves 10, providing two people don't want any pudding".

Ha ha! Yes, exactly! It's the same with the bottled soft drinks (like Coke Lucozade etc). Those standard ones you get in packs of 6 in the supermarket are all two servings in each bottle 😡

 

[FM001]

What's frustrating though is the 'traffic light' system will lead to complacency. You'll just get people deciding that as long as the stuff in packets has a green dot on it, they can eat as much as they like and continue to eat factory produced rubbish,

This would only happen if people cannot comprehend the information given, doesn't packaging with the traffic light system come with GDA's?

 

[HelenM]

I thought I was good at label reading but I made a mistake this weekend.
I bought a bar of chocolate at a local fair chocolate fair (I know a rather stupid place to visit!) I tried a tiny bit: tasted very rich and dark.

I looked at the carbs per 100g :21g ...great I thought even less than my 'normal' dark choc.
Should have realised that the label was in English not French
When I got home I realised that it was labelled for the US market.
Carbs were per serving which was 40g ...and to confuse things even more fibre was also included in the carb count.

And this is the bar being sold in dollars
http://worldwidechocolate.com/shop_yves_thuries_103.html

 

[heasandford]

What about those things you sometimes get when it gives the values per 100g but doesn't tell you what the object weighs! 🙄

and that's against the law too!

 

[DeusXM]

This would only happen if people cannot comprehend the information given, doesn't packaging with the traffic light system come with GDA's?

I don't want to sound like I doubt the intelligence of the Great British public, but in my local supermarket it's quite clear the majority of people have no idea how use basic contraception (or have trouble connecting the dots to work out where babies come from), or that a family pack of cheese and onion rolls doesn't constitute a balanced diet. Is a GDA really going to mean anything to most people?