New labelling signals trouble ahead

Yet again the food industry finds itself fingered as the axis of evil, marketing weapons of mass destruction -- or in this case high fat and high sugar processed foods -- that are putting the nation's health at risk.

Government ministers fear that the ailing public health service won't cope with the increasing number of patients with metabolic diseases such as type II diabetes. In an effort to avoid a National Health Service (NHS) bill predicted to reach £3.5bn a year by 2010, they have called for action.

In May, the House of Commons Health Committee recommended that the food industry be given three years to voluntarily implement measures that will reduce obesity. These include reformulating foods to reduce their energy density; providing information symbols to help consumers choose healthy products; withdrawing television advertising of unhealthy food to children; and a review of all forms of food promotion, especially in schools.

At a recent forum on obesity, the UK's deputy chief medical officer Fiona Asher said that the government's approach would be similar to that taken over salt. Products high in fat or sugar must be reformulated or they will be named and shamed, or even made to carry a government health warning.

Reducing the energy density of food is clearly more complex than removing salt, but there is no doubt improvements can be made.

Speaking at the same obesity forum, Jude Cohen, an executive director of Weight Concern, cited the findings of a recent Consumers Association survey of breakfast cereals which found only three products -- Shredded Wheat, plain Ready Break and Oats So Simple -- passed dietary guidelines for being described as healthy. Cereals are just one example where manufacturers could reduce sugar levels, said Cohen.

Calls for clearer labelling were highlighted by Asher. "Food labelling is an issue that has come out of our work with the Food Standards Agency," she says. "It's hard for consumers to pick up products and work out what they are eating. They need to be able to understand food labelling without a degree in chemistry."

The problem the industry faces is that all food is comprised of chemicals and convenience foods often have a complex chemistry. So providing simple labelling that meets everyone's needs -- including the regulators -- is no easy task.

More problematic is the fact that no one agrees on what diet is best for weight loss. Debate rages even among experts over the merits of low-fat versus Atkins-style diets. Despite conflicting opinions from the scientific and dietetic community, producers are expected to promote the right 'healthy' products and consumers are expected to choose them.

Food and Drink Federation deputy director general Martin Paterson says: "The obesity problem is complex and multifaceted -- there are no quick fixes. Any action taken must be based on sound science and we need government, industry and all stakeholders to work together with a commitment to achieving real results over the long term."

Clearer Labels

Despite the lack of scientific consensus, the expectation on the industry to come up with a solution is huge. There are calls for products to carry 'traffic light' style labels based on energy density. Products high in sugar or fat would have a red label and those low in sugar or fat would get a green.

The retailer Tesco has already come up with its own less radical but "informative" labelling to provide customer-friendly nutrition information.

These highlight total fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar content with a red, amber or green colour code, alongside calorie and carbohydrate information.

The trial, which starts in September, will see hundreds of products, including ready meals, bakery and snacks, carrying the distinctive new labelling. If the labels prove popular and helpful to customers, Tesco could roll out the initiative across its whole own-label range over the next two years.

Some industry commentators believe this is a better solution than simply labelling foods as good or bad based on energy density. Ian Ferguson, chief executive of Tate & Lyle is one of them: "It is not possible to use such simplistic labelling. The multi- traffic light labelling pioneered by Tesco helps consumers to make more informed choices."

Industry will watch with interest to see how consumers cope with the new labels. However some commentators believe that if current ingredients labelling is confusing, it is hard to see how more information on four different ingredients will make purchasing decisions any easier.

Glycaemic Index

Another initiative introduced by Tesco is the use of Glycaemic Index (GI) labelling. Already in use in Australia, GI labelling is designed to encourage people to switch to carbohydrate-based products that have a low GI index, or low rating on blood sugar levels.

Foods with a low GI rating are digested more slowly, giving a slow, sustained release of energy that keeps people feeling full for longer. High GI foods cause glucose levels to rise and fall rapidly and can leave people feeling hungry and prone to snacking.

However the GI index provides yet another labelling challenge for manufacturers, and debate continues over whether products should be labelled according to glycaemic load, which relates to portion size, or GI which enables easy comparison between different products.

Whatever the debate's outcome, Mike Lindley, head of product development at Reading Scientific Services, says: "Manufacturers need to spend time and effort in understanding the glycaemic implications of their products so that they can be modified, if necessary."

One sector that has largely been ignored during the obesity debate is diet products. It has had its fair share of criticism for promoting 'fad diets' and overstating weight loss levels in the past.But if ever there was a time for a shift in thinking it is now, argues Eileen Skinner of the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association.

"Some diets do work and have to be taken seriously as a way to help in the current crisis," she says. This is particularly true for those already overweight, for whom exercise is not an option. Diet products and formula foods are highly regulated and well tested she argues: "If the NHS is serious about reducing the obesity bill, it should start taking the diet industry more seriously."

One area where food companies can make a rapid and painless contribution to the obesity problem is in changes to their promotional tactics. The Department of Heath has already issued a White Paper consultation on the impact of advertising and what contributions could be made to tackle obesity. Watchdog Ofcom is also reviewing the codes relating to food advertising to children and possible revisions are due to emerge later in the summer.

Joined up thinking from all government departments is required, and food producers need to show they can be part of the solution. But a question mark hangs over whether the new labelling will help. As Asher herself says, people know what foods are bad for them, but do they understand the consequences of obesity? Perhaps better education on the consequences would have more effect.FM