The Times: Why we can't trust food labels
Pack of porky pies: How food labels mislead us. By David Rowan
Not feeling too chirpy? You need the new Body&Soul Rejuvenating Better-Health Sex-God Bio Bar.
Recommended by the Bulgarian Sexological Association, these 80 per cent fat-free wellbeing bars are clinically proven to help your body resist stress, preserve youthful good looks and revitalise your soul. Now available in a new Guarana Lite energy variety with genuine bifidus effects, this is the only naturally sensitive bio bar that works towards maintaining a healthy heart. And, of course, you'll become an irresistible lover - but do read the label ...
As regular readers of Body&Soul will know from our regular Behind the Label column, food companies make an extraordinary number of health and nutrition claims for some of the least likely products. Shoppers are regularly faced with countless questionable claims, from high-sugar chocolate drinks that claim to be "positively healthy" to stodgy children's cereals that are a "good source of calcium" (but only if served with calcium-rich milk). These days it pays to be not just savvy but sceptical, too.
Part of the battle is spotting those emotive but legally meaningless terms that litter the supermarket shelves. Take the word "fresh", as in "oven fresh", "garden fresh" or "ocean fresh". These terms can mean whatever the manufacturer wants them to. Similarly, the phrases "natural goodness" or "naturally better" are no guarantee of quality. They, too, serve largely as marketing tools.
The current rules are a mess. As the Food Standards Agency (FSA) advises, there are no official definitions of "light" or "lite"; terms such as "bio", "value" and "economy" can mean exactly what the manufacturer chooses; and a "no added sugar" product might still be high in sugar-rich ingredients. And, even if a ready meal is described as healthily "free from artificial preservatives", there is no guarantee that it is not packed with excessive levels of unhealthy preservatives such as salt. Amid such marketing-led assertions, it is not surprising that CocaCola felt able to label tap water from its factory in Sidcup, South London, as "pure still water".
Last October, the Consumers' Association conducted a survey of health and nutrition boasts made for some popular branded goods. Its criticisms were withering. Heinz spaghetti in tomato sauce, for instance, claims to contain the equivalent of one portion of fruit and vegetables per can - thus contributing towards the Government's "five a day" message. But the Consumers' Association pointed out that the product would fail to meet government health guidelines because it also contains too much salt, which is linked to high blood pressure. It also criticised Kellogg's for claiming that Frosties builds healthy bones and boosts concentration, energy and heart health -vague claims, it said, for a cereal notably high in sugar and less nutritious than some competitors.
"We're concerned about the extent of misleading claims now made," says Michelle Smyth, of the Consumers' Association's food team. Particular bugbears include the Food Doctor's Get It On "sex, fruit and seed bar", which states: "The nutrients in this bar may balance hormones and with added ginkgo biloba support the flow of blood to the extremities". "Such vague claims are ridiculous," Smyth says. "Consumers need to be aware of the overall value of a food, so that if something is advertised as low fat, flip over the pack and look at the small print."
Last summer, the FSA asked local trading standards officers to investigate how accurately terms such as fresh, natural, pure, traditional, original, authentic, home-made and farmhouse were being used. Its conclusion: four out of ten samples used the terms misleadingly or ambiguously. Under FSA guidelines, a "farmhouse" product, for instance, should be made in a house on a farm, or more specifically in the farmer's main dwelling. Yet about three quarters of those examined were produced in industrial premises.
"Traditional" foods, too, should be made from a recipe, ingredients and cooking methods that had "existed for a significant period". Yet the FSA pointed out that Lairds Larder Original Scottish Recipe Traditional Vanilla Fudge contained such modern ingredients as hydrogenated oil, emulsifier and glucose syrup. "We have legislation which prohibits false and misleading claims, and the agency also issues guidance on nutritional claims which local authority enforcers use in conjunction with companies," says Rosemary Hignett, the FSA's head of food labelling and standards. "But the position is less clear regarding health claims. It's difficult for local-authority enforcers to know how valid such claims are."
The good news is that the European Commission proposed a new set of rules last July that would ban with vague or misleading health and nutrition claims. Instead, there would be strictly defined limits to what could be said; a "fat-free" product, for instance, would need to have less than 0.5 grams of fat per 100 grams, while a "light" product would need to show a 30 per cent reduction compared with the standard variety. There would also be a ban on general wellbeing claims such as "preserves youth". The proposals are due to go before the European Parliament next month and if approved could become British law within a couple of years. But the food industry is lobbying hard against new restrictions.
The Consumers' Association welcomes the proposals as a way of letting shoppers know that claims are "true, accurate and backed by science", although it believes there should be extra guidelines to ban misleading claims aimed at children. "The important thing is that labelling should give a clear message to consumers about that food's characteristics. Our research shows that consumers are unhappy when positive health messages are shown prominently on a package when the small print mentions the adverse effect," Hignett says.
The Food and Drink Federation, which represents the industry, is not convinced. "The Food Standards Agency already issues guidance about terms that need to be used," says the federation's spokeswoman, Christine Fisk. "The consumer will lose out if manufacturers are unable to communicate a product's benefits".
In the meantime, when faced in the aisles with "naturally relaxing" Feel Good branded drinks, or yoghurts that claim to be "good for your inner harmony", stop and do some reading. "Look at the nutritional claims with a sceptical eye," advises Hignett. "Unfortunately, the evidence shows that when people see a positive claim on the front they don't look at the factual evidence given on the back. But that's what matters."
(The Times, March 20, 2004)
Not feeling too chirpy? You need the new Body&Soul Rejuvenating Better-Health Sex-God Bio Bar.
Recommended by the Bulgarian Sexological Association, these 80 per cent fat-free wellbeing bars are clinically proven to help your body resist stress, preserve youthful good looks and revitalise your soul. Now available in a new Guarana Lite energy variety with genuine bifidus effects, this is the only naturally sensitive bio bar that works towards maintaining a healthy heart. And, of course, you'll become an irresistible lover - but do read the label ...
As regular readers of Body&Soul will know from our regular Behind the Label column, food companies make an extraordinary number of health and nutrition claims for some of the least likely products. Shoppers are regularly faced with countless questionable claims, from high-sugar chocolate drinks that claim to be "positively healthy" to stodgy children's cereals that are a "good source of calcium" (but only if served with calcium-rich milk). These days it pays to be not just savvy but sceptical, too.
Part of the battle is spotting those emotive but legally meaningless terms that litter the supermarket shelves. Take the word "fresh", as in "oven fresh", "garden fresh" or "ocean fresh". These terms can mean whatever the manufacturer wants them to. Similarly, the phrases "natural goodness" or "naturally better" are no guarantee of quality. They, too, serve largely as marketing tools.
The current rules are a mess. As the Food Standards Agency (FSA) advises, there are no official definitions of "light" or "lite"; terms such as "bio", "value" and "economy" can mean exactly what the manufacturer chooses; and a "no added sugar" product might still be high in sugar-rich ingredients. And, even if a ready meal is described as healthily "free from artificial preservatives", there is no guarantee that it is not packed with excessive levels of unhealthy preservatives such as salt. Amid such marketing-led assertions, it is not surprising that CocaCola felt able to label tap water from its factory in Sidcup, South London, as "pure still water".
Last October, the Consumers' Association conducted a survey of health and nutrition boasts made for some popular branded goods. Its criticisms were withering. Heinz spaghetti in tomato sauce, for instance, claims to contain the equivalent of one portion of fruit and vegetables per can - thus contributing towards the Government's "five a day" message. But the Consumers' Association pointed out that the product would fail to meet government health guidelines because it also contains too much salt, which is linked to high blood pressure. It also criticised Kellogg's for claiming that Frosties builds healthy bones and boosts concentration, energy and heart health -vague claims, it said, for a cereal notably high in sugar and less nutritious than some competitors.
"We're concerned about the extent of misleading claims now made," says Michelle Smyth, of the Consumers' Association's food team. Particular bugbears include the Food Doctor's Get It On "sex, fruit and seed bar", which states: "The nutrients in this bar may balance hormones and with added ginkgo biloba support the flow of blood to the extremities". "Such vague claims are ridiculous," Smyth says. "Consumers need to be aware of the overall value of a food, so that if something is advertised as low fat, flip over the pack and look at the small print."
Last summer, the FSA asked local trading standards officers to investigate how accurately terms such as fresh, natural, pure, traditional, original, authentic, home-made and farmhouse were being used. Its conclusion: four out of ten samples used the terms misleadingly or ambiguously. Under FSA guidelines, a "farmhouse" product, for instance, should be made in a house on a farm, or more specifically in the farmer's main dwelling. Yet about three quarters of those examined were produced in industrial premises.
"Traditional" foods, too, should be made from a recipe, ingredients and cooking methods that had "existed for a significant period". Yet the FSA pointed out that Lairds Larder Original Scottish Recipe Traditional Vanilla Fudge contained such modern ingredients as hydrogenated oil, emulsifier and glucose syrup. "We have legislation which prohibits false and misleading claims, and the agency also issues guidance on nutritional claims which local authority enforcers use in conjunction with companies," says Rosemary Hignett, the FSA's head of food labelling and standards. "But the position is less clear regarding health claims. It's difficult for local-authority enforcers to know how valid such claims are."
The good news is that the European Commission proposed a new set of rules last July that would ban with vague or misleading health and nutrition claims. Instead, there would be strictly defined limits to what could be said; a "fat-free" product, for instance, would need to have less than 0.5 grams of fat per 100 grams, while a "light" product would need to show a 30 per cent reduction compared with the standard variety. There would also be a ban on general wellbeing claims such as "preserves youth". The proposals are due to go before the European Parliament next month and if approved could become British law within a couple of years. But the food industry is lobbying hard against new restrictions.
The Consumers' Association welcomes the proposals as a way of letting shoppers know that claims are "true, accurate and backed by science", although it believes there should be extra guidelines to ban misleading claims aimed at children. "The important thing is that labelling should give a clear message to consumers about that food's characteristics. Our research shows that consumers are unhappy when positive health messages are shown prominently on a package when the small print mentions the adverse effect," Hignett says.
The Food and Drink Federation, which represents the industry, is not convinced. "The Food Standards Agency already issues guidance about terms that need to be used," says the federation's spokeswoman, Christine Fisk. "The consumer will lose out if manufacturers are unable to communicate a product's benefits".
In the meantime, when faced in the aisles with "naturally relaxing" Feel Good branded drinks, or yoghurts that claim to be "good for your inner harmony", stop and do some reading. "Look at the nutritional claims with a sceptical eye," advises Hignett. "Unfortunately, the evidence shows that when people see a positive claim on the front they don't look at the factual evidence given on the back. But that's what matters."
(The Times, March 20, 2004)
posted by David Rowan at Saturday, March 20, 2004
<< Home