UK Food Labelling

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

New labelling regulations have been introduced for food products in the UK and they have caused some controversy;

http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/foodlabels/trafficlights/

The principle is that the major components of each food are graded according to traffic light colours. So that we can avoid "red" lighted products, though, as the Food Standards Agency says, "If your favourite foods get some red traffic lights, it’s still fine to have them occasionally."

An alternative scheme has been introduced by some manufacturers, backed by Tescos as a big retailer, which is based on describing foods in terms of the % of Guideline Daily Amounts of the different components. This has had a rather mixed reception, with claims being made against it that its promoters are engaged in an exercise in obfuscation so that they can still sell their salty, fatty and sugary foods.

But, it seems to me that the more graded information contained in the GDA is much more useful. Though accepting that I may be better informed than the average consumer, I can't see how an uninformed consumer can make sensible use of the Traffic Light system. If the aim is not to consume "Red" lights except "occasionally", my regular morning orange juice is out of bounds (Red light for sugars, obviously).

I can't see how it would be possible to consume a sensible balanced diet based on only Green lights. "Man shall not live on broccoli alone". On the FSA's website, it seems to me that if you escape that stricture by allowing extensive use of "Orange" lights then you'd pretty quickly end up with a bad diet. For instance, on the page I have linked to, the "Orange" salt levels would add up to pretty high daily totals if you consumed several per day.
Another example on that page is a "moderate" fat level of 18.5g in 389kcal, which is 4.8g/100Cal, whereas I had gained from somewhere the criterion of trying to eat 3g/100Cal.

A very obvious problem that has been pointed out with the Traffic Light system is that whole classes of food will have the same Red light implying that little or none of them should be eaten, but allowing no meaningful comparison between products within a class that might be quite acceptable as part of the overall dietary balance despite its Red light.

It seems to me that taken at face value the Traffic Light system is unusable, but if you try to use it more intelligently then the GDA approach would give a better basis for comparing and choosing foods.

Can anyone see this Traffic Llight system being useful?

 

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

New labelling regulations have been introduced for food products in the UK and they have caused some controversy;

http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/foodlabels/trafficlights/

But, it seems to me that the more graded information contained in the GDA is much more useful. Though accepting that I may be better informed than the average consumer, I can't see how an uninformed consumer can make sensible use of the Traffic Light system. If the aim is not to consume "Red" lights except "occasionally", my regular morning orange juice is out of bounds (Red light for sugars, obviously).

I hate to say it, but the public are idiots.

When I first heard about the possible conflict of grading methods, I thought the same as you, how can a simple traffic light system be better? It was only when I heard the allegations of obfuscation against the food retailers that I kind of understood why there was debate.

They do seem to be saying - here's a traffic light system, it's far from perfect but there is more chance of it having an effect, as people can't add up simple percentages.

They did have some teenagers on the news one night (can't remember whether it was this exact story or something else) and few of them could do simple percentages such as 20% of £5. I imagine it wasn't hard to find people to illustrate their point though.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"here's a traffic light system, it's far from perfect but there is more chance of it having an effect"

My problem with it is that it can't work properly for stupid people, because taken literally its gradings can't easily lead to better choices, but nor is it useful for people who are able to do the simple arithmetic.

 

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I don't disagree. It begs the question...just what will work? I don't hold out much optimism to be honest.

Going slightly off-topic here, but have you noticed as well how many times the argument is used by the less well off that they can't afford to eat healthily?

Personally, any time I eat junk food (which is not often), I can't believe how expensive it is to eat Pizza, chinese etc, compared to buying healthy wholesome foods. Sure a nice steak is expensive, but some chicken, vegetables, noodles/rice/pasta etc costs next to nothing.

Part of the problem may be that the budget food supermarkets and supermarket value ranges fill themselves with fatty and sugary crap food as they know that is the type of thing people like to eat

I acknowledge that cheaper versions of some foods can be made by using poor quality ingredients and increasing fat/sugar, however I've never been convinced that the price differential caused by this would explain why people eat such large amounts of rubbish.

 

[wollery]

The main problem with both systems is that the people who really need to modify their diet are precisely the people who will ignore the systems! The people who will take the most notice are the ones who would already look at the existing labelling and understand what it was telling them.

This isn't a problem of labelling, but a problem of education, and society as a whole.

 

[geni]

Can anyone see this Traffic Llight system being useful?

Sure.

Red= tastes good.

 

[Stitch]

The Agency would like to see traffic light colours used on the following foods: ready meals, pizzas, sandwiches, breakfast cereals, sausages, burgers, pies and food products in breadcrumbs such as chicken nuggets and fish fingers.

Strikes me if the food qualifies for a label of either type, it's probably better to avoid it for the most part.