Keep labelling simple, stupid
A quick glance at the supermarket shelves shows an unprecedented amount of information on food packaging. As well as the rows of numbers analysing every nutritional element of the product, there are flashes, stripes and stickers all brandishing claims -- mostly health-related. All the better for helping consumers pick their way through the nutritional minefield, you'd think.
However, research carried out by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has shown that, in fact, consumers find labels confusing, misleading and unreliable.
Since November 2004 the FSA has been tasked with finding a clear, universal 'signposting' system which can be adopted by all manufacturers.
Five options have been trialled, including two traffic-light systems. The simplest is a single green, amber or red circle signifying a food's overall contribution to a balanced diet, while the second is an extended version with five rather than three colours.
The three alternative concepts being mooted are:
- A logo identifying all 'healthy' food which meets an agreed set of criteria
- The inclusion of Guideline Daily Allowances (GDAs) on packaging
- The scoring of a range of key nutrients as high, medium or low
Our readers tell us they want clear, consumer-friendly, labelling. But are traffic lights too simplistic?
What about the foods that don't easily fit into such rigid categories such as nuts and cheese?
Although most consumers aren't yet familiar with Guideline Daily Amounts, it's a system that's clear and easy to understand, allowing consumers to place nutritional information in the context of a balanced diet.
With obesity rates still growing in the UK -- latest figures report that 24m adults are overweight or obese -- it's vital manufacturers and retailers help consumers make the best choices possible. Clear and honest labelling of all food is the only way forward.
Joanne Finney is food writer at Good Housekeeping magazine
