Simplifying Front Of Pack Information
After years of debate in Britain about the pros and cons of various front of pack labeling schemes, numerous research studies and focus group discussions, a decision seems to have been made. Consensus has by no means been reached but retailers have fallen into line and the government has finally taken a stand. By Summer 2013, it is intended that packs will have "consistent visuals" showing levels of fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar as well as calorie content.
Campaigners favoring the new system claim it will help people more easily make informed decisions, simply by looking at the colors of the packs in their shopping baskets. Proponents insist the system provides information consumers can accept or reject; opponents say regulations "undermine individual responsibility."
Joanna Blythman explained in The Daily Mail why she thought traffic lights would be more complicated, not less. Dairy products and nuts, she says, would get red lights because of their fat content; dried fruit because of sugar. Diet sodas could get green lights because they are low-sugar and snacks such as popcorn "because it’s mainly air." Livestock farmers may share her feelings when they see what they have worked so hard to produce labeled "unhealthy". The real problem, she believes, is that the system is not just simple but "simplistic, and therefore, potentially, highly misleading."
The final decision was made after the country’s Big Four supermarkets — Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Asda and Morrisons — agreed to use the system. Sainsbury’s has been using a combination of traffic lights and Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) since 2005. As The Independent reported, Tesco and Morrisons had rejected the system, claiming it would "demonize" certain foods but have now conceded, possibly because of government pressure.
Endorsing food industry objections, foodanddrinkeurope.com highlighted fears that cheese, full-fat milk, sausages and bacon could be perceived as junk food without nutritional value with hybrid labels not emphasising their role in "a healthy balanced diet."
Along with Kelloggs and other manufacturers, Nestlé plans to continue using guideline daily amounts, according to The Financial Times, because traffic lights focus "only on negative aspects of nutrients and do not offer sufficient factual information."
Final appearance is still being considered; The Grocer reports the Food & Drink Federation (FDF) saying "it was ‘actively engaged’ in negotiations on what the new system will look like."
- Single system for nutrition labelling announced – Department of Health
- Government opts for hybrid front-of-pack labelling – just-food
- Unified food labelling to be in place by summer 2013 says government – The Grocer
- Why traffic light labels on food will make us all fatter AND ruin our farmers – Daily Mail
- Traffic light labels will "damage the food industry" – foodanddrinkeurope.com
- Tesco relents to give healthy food labelling system the green light – Independent
- Nestle spurs "traffic light" food labelling – Finanical Times
Discussion Questions
Are American retailers, food manufacturers and consumers in sync about the best way of presenting information? Would a system as simple as this one suit American consumers, retailers and manufacturers? Who should have the final say?
Not at all in sync and any simple system that has an evaluative context is doomed to fail. A system that shows key measures (calories, fat, sodium, etc.) is evaluation neutral and much more reasonable than a traffic light approach. Manufacturers (say FMI?) should have the final say.
Facts only please! The use of colors, numbers, stars, etc. to “grade” products only confuses the issue. Give people the numbers and let them decide. I must be “old school” because I think the current info on the package back is sufficient for consumers who are interested. Mom is not going to put back the Lucky Charms if little Johnny is screaming for them. If she can’t balance them with other healthy breakfasts, then IMHO no amount of stop lights will change that.
Here in California, we have a proposition on the ballot to require labeling for GMOs. I believe we all have to take a deep breath and determine what is necessary and what is overkill.
No way are they in sync on how best to present the information. I think a uniform approach is best for the consumer, as it would be uniform across manufactures. Manufacturers should have final say and use an advisory group for oversight.
I recall that Google labels the snack shelves at their offices red/yellow/green for health benefit. Not sure what the criteria is, but it may be good start for consumers.
Clearly there is no agreement on how best to present nutritional information. If there were, we wouldn’t be discussing it. Part of the problem is that the argument is advanced by two extremes — consumer advocates that want shoppers to be able to understand every conceivable danger that may be present in a product on the one hand, and manufacturers who would prefer pretty pictures to any label on the other.
In my mind, the discussion comes down to three words — sugar, fat and salt. Those are the things that make processed food taste good and therefore the very things one side of the discussion wishes to expose as much as the other side desperately wishes to conceal.
Before I am inundated by a Greek Chorus praising all the efforts manufacturers have made to label products and achieve nutritional transparency, let me just add two more words to the discussion — portion size. How many consumers can reason back from the portion size information to actual nutritional data about the amount of food they are consuming? Not too many.
When will all the madness stop? When we calculate the cost to society — and by extension individual taxpayers — of supporting a “nutrition labeling system” that — to date — has done little to stem the tide of obesity, diabetes and coronary disease in the population.
It’s all well and good to talk about how individuals ought to exercise personal caloric control until you realize that — in the end — every one of us gets to pick up a portion of their tab when they don’t.
I have mixed views. First thought on the ‘traffic light’ thing is ‘Are we back in kindergarten’? I’m still getting over being put in the Monkeys reading group instead of the Eagles. My goodness — these people are assuming the average IQ is slightly above a hockey puck.
Second thought is that doing something simple and intuitive is just not the American way. Our motto is: “Why do it the simple way when the complex way will work?”
Good sense is becoming rarer and rarer, unfortunately.
There has been a huge struggle to get consistent information on the nutrition labeling we now have. There is also some discrepancy on how items are defined, e.g., why is sugar alcohol separated from sugar for some products and not others? Given the variety of allergies and diets, a product that is good for one person is unhealthy, or even dangerous for someone else. A simplistic system sounds nice, but does not appear to be realistic for the U.S. market.
This is not simple to assess. In reality consumers make purchase decisions on different sets of criteria. The “light” system attempts to direct decision making along one framework. Front of the package labeling has traditionally communicated (for better or worse) the information and emotional imagery marketers and consumers have decided upon. Now come the supreme voices and graphics. It changes the dynamics of decision making. Will I like the green lights better than the red lights? Will I go rogue and red? Chances are consumers will try to be better behaved in their choices…at least the first time. But my concern is how marketers will get across all that other information and imagery that helps convey the characteristics shoppers prefer to know about.
ORRRR we could just eat less packaged/processed food (except bacon and cheese of course). No packaging = no labels.
I believe that the British system is too simplistic and does not provide the overall information needed to make wise purchase decisions. The US currently has labeling guidelines on food packaging that provides a summary of nutritional information in a straight-forward manner. I believe it is up to the consumer to make the final say when they read the label and make the decision to buy or not buy a particular product.
Proposing this system here would unleash irresponsible and negative attacks by all sides, much like our presidential elections. And actually agreeing to use it would be as hard as getting something past Congress. I favor increasing the use of the shelf tags that rate foods; consumers accept these programs and are guided by them without much fuss. I find them helpful, but also always look at the numbers on the packages, as I suspect many of people do. But as Ryan points out, our present system isn’t making a dent in obesity, etc. So we have to keep looking for a solution. Red-light green-light isn’t going to be it.