Industry concern over pressure to cut sugar and fat content
Industry experts have warned that government pressure to reduce sugar and fat in processed foods to help consumers curb obesity could give rise to product safety problems.
Speaking at the Westminster Diet & Health Forum on actions proposed in the government's white paper on public health, the industry voiced concerns that manufacturers were being pressured to reformulate products to reduce fat and sugar content without proper scientific knowledge of the consequences. Speakers warned that it could cause safety problems and have unforeseen long-term health consequences.
Manufacturers are worried that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) plans to employ the same tactics used over salt to get manufactures to reduce sugar content this year. That is setting targets and then naming and shaming companies that don't meet them.
Angie Jefferson, a consultant dietician, said the removal of sugar and fat from products could microbiologically put people's health at risk. It may also mean they have to store products differently in future, she said.
Food and Drink Federation (FDF) director general Sylvia Jay said the FDF had asked the FSA to ensure the safety of low-sugar and low-fat products was being monitored. While the FDF's members had agreed in their Food & Drink Manifesto last year to reduce sugar and fat in products, she claimed the situation was different to that of salt as low-fat and no-sugar products were already available.
She added that some companies had already undertaken reductions. However, one cereal producer that had managed to reduced sugar ended up increasing salt content to do so. She said that the FSA's strategy to get consumers to eat a more balanced diet needed a more joined-up approach.
Concern was also raised about whether taking fat and sugar out of the diet might affect the uptake of other nutrients in the long-term. Fat helps the body absorb vitamins such as A and D, which are not soluble in water.
Dr Reg Wilson, head of food materials at the Institute of Food Research said that the complexity of the issue meant that the industry needed to develop more understanding of the scientific implications first.
"Industry critics often say that it is not rocket science -- but the complexity of food science means it is harder than rocket science. We have put a man on the moon but we have not yet worked out some of the basic science and human interactions with food," he said.
Neil Griffiths, chairman of the Society of Food Hygiene and Technology, also voiced the industry's concern over the complexity of the task. He said: "The pressure for change could cause more problems than it solves if the science behind it is not already there."
