Traffic light labelling debate heats up
Health and consumer groups are calling for an overhaul of food packaging regulations following the release of new research carried out by Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute, which suggested the ‘traffic light’ labeling system would assist consumers in their decision-making process.
The survey of nearly 800 shoppers from Newcastle and Sydney, commissioned by a group of health and consumer groups including the Cancer Council and CHOICE, found 81 per cent of shoppers could correctly identify healthier foods using traffic light labelling, compared to 64 per cent of surveyed shoppers correctly identifying healthier foods using the Daily Intake Guide.
Traffic light labels display fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium levels in three separate colour coded circles. Green means a food is low in the respective contents, while amber is medium and red is high. The Daily Intake Guide, which is currently used by many manufacturers, highlights the contribution of contents (including saturated fat, total fat, sugar and salt) provided per serve as a percentage of the recommended daily intake for an adult.
The major discrepancy was discovered amongst lower socio-economic groups, who reportedly found the Daily Intake Guide more difficult to understand than higher socio-economic groups.
“Australia is gripped by a growing obesity epidemic and the government must act now to ensure shoppers can use nutrition labels on food to make healthy choices,” claimed Kathy Chapman, Nutritionist at Cancer Council. “The simple traffic light system is the way forward, and in basic terms, green means a food item is healthy and red means unhealthy. ”
“Traffic light labels are simple and easy to use,” CHOICE Food Policy Officer Clare Hughes added. “They enable busy consumers to make healthy choices while doing their shopping. Shoppers don’t have all day to stand around in supermarket aisles calculating their dietary needs.”
The findings have been questioned by the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC), who believe the Daily Intake Guide provides the consumer with the highest quality information.
“The release today of survey results by vocal advocacy group CHOICE and its coalition partners showing that consumers favour traffic light food labelling over the existing Daily Intake Guide labelling system is wide of the mark,” AFGC CEO Kate Carnell said in a statement. “The fact that CHOICE’s survey results contradict a large portion of the data produced by reputable international organisations leads us to question their approach.”
“For example, independent research conducted by specialist research firm Newspoll on the Daily Intake Guide labelling found that around 66 per cent of Australians believe that the Daily Intake Guide is easy to read and understand,” Ms Carnell added. “Similarly, a study by the European Food Information Council also found that consumers had a strong understanding of the daily intake system, with 89 per cent being able to correctly interpret the labelling.”
Ms Carnell insists that the traffic light system is “an over simplistic approach”, pointing to an example of a comparison between lollies and dried sultanas. “…If applied to a serving of lollies and a serving of dried sultanas traffic light would suggest to the consumer that there is no nutritional difference between these foods, even though the Daily Intake system shows that the serve of lollies contains double the amount of energy and sugar. This is not an isolated example,” she reported.
The arguments for and against traffic light labeling are many and varied, including:
- Easy to use vs. too simplistic
- Draws attention to unhealthy products and gets consumers to reconsider purchases vs. doesn’t encourage variety, balance and moderation
- Promotes selection of healthier products vs. doesn’t highlight how to incorporate the product as a part of a healthy diet
- Focus on per 100gm allows ease of comparison vs. doesn’t show ‘per serve’ figures meaning it might not focus on amounts likely to be eaten
Australian Food News would welcome your views on the issue. Is the ‘traffic light’ system as good as CHOICE and the Cancer Council contend? Or should the focus remain on the Daily Intake Guide?
The full study can be found at: www.cancercouncil.com.au/nutrition/foodlabellingreport.
Basically what is being compared here is a simple visual cue (coloured traffic lights) to guide consumer choice regarding the ‘healthiness’ of a packaged product versus a more detailed numerical system. It’s not surprising that busy shoppers would find the simple traffic light labelling on front of packs appealing.
However, the important question is NOT whether one system is better than the other because we just don’t know from the limited number of consumer surveys conducted here and overseas. From a public health perspective, the significant question to ask is this: Will mandatory (nutrition) labelling using the traffic light system improve or change consumer food choices and lead to healthier diets at the POPULATION LEVEL?
In this respect, there needs to be a thorough risk benefit analysis to assess the overall impact of mandatory traffic light labelling of packaged food in improving population health. And if it proves to be an effective public health strategy, then why not extend the system to cover all foods, including ready-to-eat and takeaways meals.
I find it interesting that we have two groups with a lot of clout putting forward two quite different labeling propositions.
I get suspicious when Retailers unite and agree, must be some ulterior motive I think.
The question as Frances says above is, does any label make a difference to the consumption and the health outcomes?
Eat less, move more
Personally, I find the idea of traffic light food labeling quite fascinating. I am also amazed that there is absolutely zero awareness of this concept within the US. I just happened to stumble upon it while searching for a completely different thing. I also discovered that there is a discussion on this topic within the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and it is quite likely that we might see additional food labeling regulations within the US based on this concept. FDA is worried about the rising rates of obesity, particularly among children despite the fact that the nutritional labels provide ample information about every food item sold in stores. Obviously, the consumers are not able to make good decisions even though the information is right there!
This may not be the perfect system, but anything that helps the consumers make a good decision about their nutrition, should be welcome. Congratulations to you all in Australia and UK for thinking about this concept and at least start a debate!