Conclusions from a recent study carried out by Impact PR confirmed that New Zealand food manufacturers are failing to provide consumers with enough detail on product labels, with almost six out of 10 (58%) of respondents saying that food labels were hard to understand.
Nearly one in 10 (9%) of those surveyed said that a low sugar level was the most important factor in determining which products were healthy. Take skimmed milk for example: a healthy alternative to whole milk, comprising 0.1% fat or less. A definite ‘low fat’ option. However, skimmed milk can, depending on the brand, contain more sugar than its full-fat or half-fat counterpart.
In Australia, the labelling debate has recently been reignited as the consumer advocacy group Choice has suggested that the traffic light labelling system should be adopted as standard on all food products. Consumers should be able to clearly see the nutritional profile of a food or drink product based on a colour code system.
However, in June, the European Parliament deemed the system to be unclear and confusing, rejecting the request as a result, suggesting a system that shows how much sodium, carbohydrate and fat are within a product is the best way to go.
It seems everyone is confused, and confused as to how to eliminate the confusion. Are you confused? A two-year study by the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) found that consumers in the UK were being misled by ‘meaningless descriptions on food labels’.
For example, the terms ‘traditional’, ‘authentic’ and ‘original’ have presented a level of uncertainty for consumers. Manufacturers not abiding by the current regulations may face a conviction of £5,000 according to the FAC.
The FDA, the FSA and all organisations in authority to deal with such issues will have to pick their battles. This problem isn’t easy to monitor, and relatively easy for food companies to hover below the misleading labelling radar.
It must be noted that many in the food industry are keeping in line with labelling regulations, and keeping true to the product/marketing guidelines.
As a result of the FAC report, detailed recommendations have been established that will be used as the basis for a consultation process to be carried out by the FSA over the next three months, to create guidelines that will be enforced in the UK and elsewhere.
Ian Marber, nutrition consultant and director, The Food Doctor, told FoodBev.com, “The accepted practice of highlighting one aspect of a food as a ‘quality’ or benefit goes back many years. A low-fat version of a previously higher-fat food is allowed to proclaim itself accordingly, but as consumers, we’re naive and that food becomes ‘good’ in our minds. It could be a significant source of refined sugar or simple carbohydrates, but that’s ignored.”
So perhaps it’s our responsibility as consumers to find the true nutritional value of a product and not rely on the claims screaming at us from the supermarket aisles.
Marber suggests that, “We need to be savvy about labels. It’s like reading the small print on a document, so learn the language and read the ingredients list.”
It’s worth remembering that beer was once marketed as ‘cholesterol free’. When exactly did beer ever contain cholesterol?
Rebecca is editorial assistant of FoodBev.com. You can contact her here, or read her blog here.
© FoodBev Media Ltd 2024