FOOD LABELING-SUGAR CONTENT UNDER ATTACK

The front of the pack labeling regulations are supposed to help the consumers to understand better about many aspects of the contents inside including nutritive value. However due to practical reasons there is a limit as to how much information can be loaded on the labels and there are doubts regarding the effectiveness of the present regulations. In a country like India such declaration printed in English has very little value as majority of the population are English illiterate and the information provided probably does not serve the consumer community much. Still the current labeling practices do serve a purpose in documenting the nature of the product for quality and safety agencies to administer food laws. Having established beyond a shadow of doubt regarding the role played by sugar in progressively deteriorating health status of human beings in many countries, knowing the sugar content in a product helps the consumer to pick and choose those with least sugar levels among processed food products. One of the new proposals now being considered to improve the effectiveness of labeling involves declaration of "added sugar" in the product during processing. Whether this will serve any purpose or how added sugar can be distinguished from naturally present sugar are issues which require to be deliberated before implementing the same. Here is a take on this new rumblings in the food processing sector with a potential to polarize the stakeholders further in the coming months. 

The American Bakers Assn. objects to the plan, saying (among other things) that since added and natural sugars are chemically the same, to enforce the labels the FDA would have to be able to inspect companies' recipes and they don't have the authority to do that. At the FDA website, you can read about the FDA's proposal and view comments that have been submitted. The National Dairy Council says such labels could lead to consumer confusion and unintended consequences, such as people avoiding nutritious foods that have sugars added to make them more tasty. They note that you can already see how much sugar is in food from the info on food packages right now. The National Milk Producers Federation worries about consumer confusion too. The Sugar Assn. recommends the study is not done, for a variety of reasons: They say the effect of added sugar on obesity is overstated, the FDA wouldn't have the regulatory power to act on this info, and that "it is in the public interest that FDA maintain its focus on the prominence of calories, maintain its science-based positions regarding added sugars labeling, and not further confuse consumers by adding unwarranted information to the [Nutrition Facts Panel]." And so it goes on … the National Confectioners Assn.opposes the research, the American Beverage Assn. opposes it.......while......on the flip side, the American Heart Assn."strongly supports the inclusion of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label" and writes that "In addition to the AHA, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, MyPlate.gov, and countless other sources of dietary guidance recommend that consumers limit consumption of added sugars. Yet this can be difficult to do because added sugars are not currently included on the Nutrition Facts label. While 'sugars' is listed, the Nutrition Facts label does not distinguish between naturally occurring sugars such as those found in fruit or milk, which are associated with other important components inherent to foods such as vitamins and minerals, and added sugars, which are not." The Center for Science in the Public Interest is for the study, The Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University is for the study too. It is, of course, true that people can be misled if they overly focus on one particular facet of a food and that current labels on food packages are very good at helping us get confused that way. "Low-fat" items can contain just as many calories as higher-fat foods, and "organic" processed foods can be just as junky as any other kind, and just because Lucky Charms are made with whole grains, that does not make them a health food.

In a society where daily diet is made of processed foods as high as 70-80%, extent of sugar added by the industry during formulation may be critical and is controllable either voluntarily or by mandate. In such an environment declaration of added sugar can at least make the processor sensitive to the level of sugar incorporated and there is a possibility that voluntary reduction can be achieved. This is already happening with respect to salt and there is no reason it cannot happen with sugar too. It is not understandable as to why sugar needs to be added in high concentrations when many products can be still palatable at sugar levels of 10-15%. The current proposal to force the processors to declare the extent of sugar added can even set in motion competition among the processors to reduce added sugar as much as possible to gain consumer patronage. Technically it may be difficult to estimate in a finished product how much sugar has been added but as the processor knows the truth he can be forced to declare the same. While voluntary declaration of added sugar can be immediately enforced, monitory regime can be thought of later when reliable and simpler techniques are available for differentiating between natural and added sugar.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

AVOIDING THE LABEL TRAP- A CRITIC'S SUGGESTION

Labeling "tricks" by the food processing industry in different forms rake in billions of dollars from the unsuspecting consumers every year with the latter hardly aware of the fraud perpetuated on him. Here is an interesting compilation by an informed critic with some past experience. Probably this will help the consumer in choosing non-controversial products with transparent labels.

"After overindulging during the holidays, many of us have resolved to eat a healthier diet in the new year. But doing so means choosing the right foods, and too often misleading food labels prompt us to purchase items that we think are good for us but really aren't. Here are 10 common labeling tricks to be aware of as you beef up your diet in 2012". 

Claims on labels are not strictly controlled in may parts of the world and invariably such claims are not based on any studies by those who print many of such outlandish claims to mislead and confuse the consumer. Industry feels that if Safety Management Agencies can enforce printing of negative attributes like allergy, trans fats, cholesterol etc it should be allowed to make claims made by genuine scientists published in recognized international scientific journals. Well this is a controversial area and a consensus needs to be evolved regarding the mechanism that will govern printing of universally accepted positive claims for any product.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE POWER OF "LABELING"-MAKING THE CONSUMER A SUCKER?

The labeling provision under food legislation is supposed to make the contents of a sealed food pack more transparent in terms of ingredients and nutrition. But does it really serve the purpose for which is was designed? There are differing views on this issue but most despicable aspect of label declarations is inserting unproven or vague claims to attract the unsuspecting consumer with lot of promise but never delivered! Though many countries are making their labeling regulations more and more stringent, the wily industry invariably finds gaping loopholes for continuing with such deceitful clams. Here is the latest trend evident in some countries which reflects the mindset of the industry to make money at any cost. 

What's really behind all those new "artisan" labels consumers are seeing in their supermarkets? Loblaws has just announced its "artisan style" croutons. Metro stores boast an Artisan Deli Collection. And PepsiCo now offers artisan tortilla chips. It all raises a question: are shoppers being served up the real deal — a genuine individually produced product — or being duped by companies trying to tap consumer interest in homestyle products? Canada's labelling rules don't spell out any definition of "artisan," but they prohibit false and misleading representations on food products. That means an "artisan" food should be produced in a "traditional and rudimentary" way using basic equipment and a "significant portion of manual labour," according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Many small businesses do just that. At Ottawa's Art Is In Bakery, for instance, the breads and baked goods are all manufactured by hand at the small retail shop and wholesale bakery, which serves local stores and restaurants. In contrast, big brands, such as Pepperidge Farm and "Domino's have picked up on the word and are now making "artisan" products for the masses. In a recently published report, food industry expert Tom Vierhile found there were nearly 500 new product launches in 2009 and 2010 with the word "artisan" or "artisanal" in the brand or product name. Vierhile, the innovation insights director at Datamonitor, said the term "gourmet" has become commonplace, so the word "artisan" builds on terms such as "homestyle," "homemade" and "authentic." "The word 'gourmet' has become so overused, I just think it's become a throwaway term. That's even less illuminating than 'artisan.' At least (artisan) suggests that it may be possibly handmade," Vierhile told Postmedia News. "It has become popular and companies are using it to identify products that have more of a specialty component or is trying to distance itself from foods that are mass-produced." Vierhile said marketing a product as artisan "can be effective to convince consumers that the product is not the same old thing," but there is a risk in branding factory-made items as artisan and selling them for a premium price. "That's sort of the rub here: Can you be artisan and be mass-produced at the same time? That's part of the conundrum with these products. If you claim to be artisan, it can be a difficult thing to convince consumers that the product is truly artisan if it's a mass-market type of item."

Recent disapproval by the authorities, of hundreds of claims made in Europe by the food industry probably may be a beginning in cracking down on such "malpractices" and other countries need to tighten their rules to help consumers to protect themselves from such predatory practices. It is rather sad that consumers also fall easy prey to this strategy of the industry without realizing that they are being cheated. As long as the claims do not endanger the lives they can be considered as an economic fraud which must be punished through economic impositions. But if the claims lead to serious health problems, severe punishment including jailing the offenders must be considered. Consumer NGOs have a constructive role to play in this field.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE "STAR" SYSTEM FOR FOOD LABELING-WILL THIS WORK?

Labeling of food packets containing processed food products of different nutrient content is intended to be a transparent mechanism of communication from the processor to the consumer. Unfortunately the science of human nutrition is so vast and ever changing, even food scientists find it difficult to decipher the real meaning of figures printed on food packets regarding their nutrient content. Credit must be given to the safety agencies that the labeling details are changed some time depending on new data emanating from time to time to make them truly informative. However consumers often fail to grasp the significance of the nutrition information affecting his capacity to make the most appropriate choice and it is here that suggestions are made to present the information on a graphic mode or symbol mode which are easily grasped. The traffic signal system of using colors like red, amber and green is being experimented with by some countries and it may take some time to arrive at any decision regarding its effectiveness and drawbacks. In the latest proposal coming from the US the star system is being recommended and probably it may be superior to other systems. Here are the details as being reported.

"The Energy Star program makes it easier for consumers to pick appliances. Now the Institute of Medicine is recommending the government create a similar system for foods and drinks sold in the grocery store. In a new report, the IOM — an independent group that advises the government on health policy — recommends instituting a front-of-the-package rating system that gives foods zero to three points, depending on their levels of saturated and trans fats, sodium and added sugars. Those were chosen because they "are the components of diet most closely linked to chronic-disease risk," said Alice Lichtenstein, vice-chair of the IOM committee and a professor at Tufts University, at a press conference today. Foods with too-high levels of any one of those components would get no points. The ratings would be displayed using stars, check marks or some other icon. In addition, all foods would have the amount of calories per serving displayed on the front of their packages — and a serving would be a familiar household measurement, such as a slice or a cup. The familiar nutrition facts label on the back would continue to include additional information. Ellen Wartella, chair of the committee and a professor at Northwestern University, said at the press conference that while there are many factors that influence what and how Americans eat, "there's a clear disconnect" between the dietary guidelines for better health and what people actually eat. Providing raw information alone isn't enough, she said, and so the committee is recommending the FDA and USDA consider a "shift in strategy" that encourages consumers "to purchase healthy foods and beverages."

The traffic light system seems to have run into some incongruities with some bad products being given the green signal while a few good foods are branded as red ones. The star system of grading foods has the added advantage that similar categorization exists in regard to electrical energy efficiency grading and people are already familiar with it. It does not require much of an education to understand that higher the number of stars a product gets better it is supposed to be. Probably the nutrient content presently in vogue can be dispensed with and replaced with simple iconic classification like "starring" the product based on its nutrition and health value. There will be some problems with some products and such discrepancies can be sorted out through consensus. Fact still remains that such quality and safety grading will be much better than abstract figures contained in the nutrition labels, making no sense to most consumers. A moot question is whether industry will adopt such a system voluntarily or it should be made mandatory. If it comes into vogue as an option, there will be lot of confusion in the market with some adopting it and others not serious about putting the same into practice. On the other hand a mandatory enforcement will automatically weed out manufacturers peddling junk foods while those making good foods have better chance of success.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

NEW FOOD LABELING CONTROVERSY-HURTING RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS?

Front pack labeling seems to be an issue of perennial controversy. It is unfortunate that there is no unanimity amongst WTO member countries in evolving a globally acceptable format that could have facilitated world trade with minimum hassles. Unfortunately each country seems to be tinkering with its national regulatory formats which often do not make much sense. Latest instance is the on-going consideration in Europe for modifying the existing labeling regulations to insist on including a provision to declare Halal meats and Jewish meat products that "they are processed by killing the animal without stunning". The rationale behind such a move may be to satisfy animal activists who propagate elimination of cruel practices while handling the slaughter house bound animals. Here is a take on this latest avoidable controversy.

"Consumers could be told whether the meat they buy comes from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter, following a move in the European parliament. MEPs on the food safety committee voted on Tuesday to back amendments to a food labelling bill that would see the mandatory inclusion of labels stating "meat from slaughter without stunning" on relevant food products. The proposals, which go before the European parliament in July, target meat slaughtered using ritual techniques like those employed by Jewish shechita and Muslim halal butchers. Animals killed by the shechita technique are not stunned before having their throats cut and blood drained out. Halal meat is slaughtered using a similar technique, although research by the British Veterinary Association suggests 80% of halal meat is stunned before slaughter. Religious groups have expressed anger at the proposals. A Jewish campaign group, Shechita UK, controversially claimed the measure was the "21st-century equivalent of the yellow star, but on our food". "This amendment does nothing to improve animal welfare, fails to fully inform consumers and is clearly discriminatory by design," said Henry Grunwald, spokesman for the group".

Critics have a point in condemning this proposal as stunning is only one step that spares the agony of the victim. If one has the opportunity to see the documentary "Food Inc.", it is very clear that most of the meat industry majors have scant respect to animal welfare and no one seems to be bothered to discipline this powerful industry so that both ethical as well as food safety aspects receive the attention due to them. More over when the products are classified as Halal, every consumer knows that they are processed through religious diktats and the animals are slaughtered without stunning. The move smacks of religious discrimination by encouraging the consumers to shun Halal and Shechita meats.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING"-IS IT NOT PAROCHIAL?

Is it not an irony of history that Britishers who ruled a number of countries as a colonial power till the first half of last millennium, sucking blood out of their subjects, now wants to shun food products coming from some of these very same countries through discriminatory policies? The present move to make the food industry in that country declare on the label the country of origin of the products manufactured by them is highly deplorable and the WTO must slam this move as a non-technical barrier to free trade. It is good to be patriotic and persuade citizens to buy locally made products so that the industry there develops properly providing ample employment opportunities. But carrying this philosophy too far can hurt the world trade and will certainly attract punitive measures from the affected countries who export their products to UK.

"This retailer commitment should mean that if it says British on the label then it's British in the packet and that is a huge step in the right direction," she said. She said NFUS was still hopeful Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) would be made a legal requirement at UK and EU level across a wider range of products than those that currently qualify - beef, veal, some fruit and vegetables and eggs. "Ahead of further statutory requirements, we hope that retailers fulfil the pledges made in this initiative, particularly its extension from fresh meat into processed meat products," she said. Announcing that seven major UK retailers have signed up to the guidance, British Retail Consortium food director Andrew Opie, said many grocers already go well beyond the 'high minimum standards set out in the document'. "Supermarkets are making it easy for those shoppers who want to buy British to do so. Other food service providers need to up their game," he said. The guidelines were drawn up by the BRC with other food organisations, including the British Meat Processors Association(BMPA) and the Food and Drink Federation. BMPA director Stephen Rossides said: "Where country of origin labelling is used on meat and meat products, it should be clear, honest and not mislead consumers. The BMPA urges its member companies to follow these principles and guidelines where they apply country of origin labelling". FDF Director of Communications Julian Hunt said: "We agree that consumers should not be misled with regard to the origin of a food product and our members are committed to providing clear, honest labelling." Food and Farming Minister Jim Paice, who has had a role in encouraging development of the voluntary guidance, said: "This industry code will give consumers confidence to know, for example, that if it says British on the label, it's British in the packet. Lots of food companies already do this but it's about spreading that good practice."

Why a consumer should be concerned with the country of origin if the food products manufactured by the British food industry conform to all the safety standards, evolved and administered by the safety authorities in their own country? Why is that Chinese consumer products are flooding the markets all over the world, though quality wise they are much inferior to those manufactured in western countries?. It is simply the low price which lures the consumer to such products. It is up to the country which imports these low cost products to exercise vigil on imports so that sub-standard products do not enter the country. If all the countries in the world shun British products as a retaliatory measure what will happen to their economy? Those who campaign for country of origin label must ponder over the global repercussions of such a stupid policy.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com/

FOOD SELECTION-DOES NUTRITION LABELING REALLY HELP?

Consumer surveys, if carried out scientifically provide valuable information to the industry regarding the trend of thinking amongst consumers and plan new product development activities to evolve products with maximum acceptability. Food labeling provisions have been evolved on the basis that consumers are literate and can understand the implications of the information provided on the label. This may be true of industrially front line countries where as such assumptions may not be valid in many countries where a substantial segment of the consumer population cannot comprehend the significance of label declarations. An interesting survey in the UK has brought out the fact that most consumers buy products in the market based mostly on taste factors giving secondary importance to nutrition data.

"A new survey of UK consumers' understanding of nutrition information on food labels found most had a good grasp of predominant front-of-pack schemes – but only 27 per cent used that info to inform their food choices. Deciding on the best nutrition labelling scheme has been a contentious issue in Europe, as an all-EU system is anticipated in the new food information legislation. While the European food industry largely likes its guidance daily amounts scheme, others – such as traffic lights, Choices, and the Swedish keyhole – also have staunch supporters. The new study, published in the journal Appetite, was conducted by the Danish Aarhus University and the European Food Information Council with the cooperation of some major retailers. The conclusion that the majority of consumers can decipher nutrition info from nutrition labels but base their purchasing decisions on taste considerations instead, reinforces the need to ensure that sensory properties of healthier food options are not overlooked. But more than that, at a policy level the authors said there has been too much emphasis on choosing the right labelling scheme – and not enough on the motivating people to eat healthily. They say there is a need for a broader nutrition policy where labelling is just one of multiple instruments. In order to prevent over-reporting of nutrition label use seen in previous research, the study was conducted in two parts: interviews and questionnaires, and in-store observations. From 2000 interviews the researchers, led by Prof Klaus Grunert, found that 88 per cent of consumers were correctly able to identify the healthiest ready meal of a selection using GDAs, 84 per cent using hybrid GDA-traffic lights, and 84 using traffic lights alone. On a scale of 1-10 subjective understanding of the health info on labels was seen to be 7 for GDAs and 6.9 per traffic lights, leading Prof Grunert and co to conclude that the high level of understanding was independent of format".

The survey findings send an unmistakable message to the food industry that products having high nutrition credentials need not succeed in the market unless they are good from taste and flavor angles. No matter how hard the nutrition facts are stressed, it may be difficult to convince the consumers to change their perception of food. It is unfortunate that nutrition information becomes important only when the consumers are afflicted with one or the other health problem or over-conscious about being healthy. The survey findings raise the inevitable question whether government intervention is necessary to keep out unhealthy foods from the market through executive action. Probably before such a situation develops, industry may be well advised to combine nutrition with sensory quality in their product portfolio for a win-win situation.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

ENCOURAGING CONSUMER "ATTITUDE"-GOOD "OMEN"GLOBAL FOOD TRADE

Recent clamor for including "country of origin" information on labels of processed food packs was based on the apprehension by a segment of the consumers regarding the safety of the foods originating from other countries as traceability of the supply chain is fraught with many logistical difficulties. Besides some consumers feel that the carbon foot print of products originating from far away countries could be very high while local products with minimum transportation cause lesser green house gas emission. Though these sentiments are aired by more vociferous critics, the general public does not seem to be sharing such a perception as brought out by a recent survey on the attitude of consumers to such factors in the UK.

"UK supermarket shoppers do not appear to care which country their fresh food items come from, according to research by the University of Otago. Marketing researchers from the university investigated whether the controversial "food miles" concept impacted on supermarket shoppers' food purchasing behaviour. Lead author Associate Professor John Knight said they focused on what actually leads consumers to purchase something instead of just asking consumers their opinion"."Our survey of shoppers exiting supermarkets found that country-of-origin considerations ranked extremely low among the reasons given for why they chose to buy particular fresh food items," he said.

It has been shown by many studies previously that the single most important consideration for the consumer is the price factor and if the products are offered at low cost with safety assured there may not be any reservation in buying such products, all other factors being secondary. Patriotism generally works at times of war or severe national stress, persuading people to buy local products, possibly even at a higher price. The remarkable success of Japanese products during nineteen fifties, sixties and seventies and Chinese products these days is only because of the price factor.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

LABELING "TRAUMA"-A "CATCH 24" SITUATION?

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is an issue that is hotting up in the EU because of its implications beyond Europe. One of the cardinal principles of global free trade is "non-discrimination" of products based on country where they are manufactured as it can be construed as an indirect attempt to influence the buying decisions of the consumer at the market place. If the product quality is same there is no reason why a consumer cannot buy a product made in another country and the rigorous testing systems put in place at the entry points in each country is supposed to allow only safe and quality compliant products in. The "patriotism" factor, "local produce" movements, carbon foot print figures, cheap labor cost, lack of hygiene and sanitation, etc are all invoked to shun foreign made goods and protect nonviable local industry. If the global village concept is accepted there is no place for such discriminative trade practices any where in the world.

"Supporters of the proposed COOL regulation say it would put a stop to the practice of meat imported from countries outside the EU being processed, say in Ireland, and then being labelled as produce of Irish origin. While this is it legal, they say, it seems neither fair nor equitable as it comes perilously close to misleading consumers. Opponents counter by arguing the imposition of COOL across the board would cause serious difficulties for manufacturers of complex products such as pizzas, pies and ready meals that buy ingredients from multiple sources according to factors such availability or seasonal variation. Taken to its most extreme, they warn of vast labels listing the origin of dozens of ingredients, covering swathes of food packaging. Constantly changing labels would increase costs and waste. And inevitably, these additional costs will be passed onto customers. Everyone agrees consumers shouldn't be misled about the provenance of food. But where do we draw the line between this and the heaping of questionable bureaucracy on companies that may force some players out of the market and cut customer choice? On food labelling, as with everything else, knowledge is power. Devised properly they allow us to make informed choices about what we eat. But it is vital to find the balance between serving up portion-sized information that illuminates rather than dishing up an overload of data that risks keeping consumers in the dark and placing needless strain on food manufacturers".

Looking from another perspective, indicating the country of origin should not be an issue at all, if the manufacturing countries which export their food products have nothing to fear on the quality or safety count and probably such declaration should bring honor to them. If the products are good, consumers can be expected to prefer them over the locally made ones over a period of time. It is the industry which is having a problem as illustrated by the report above. While traceability is a desired goal which will be useful in identifying the source of food contamination responsible for food poisoning as and when it occurs, practicability of any strategy that is considered must be kept in view.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

WTO, TBT AND FOOD LABELING

"Country of Origin" clause on food package labels, as being demanded by a section of the public in the US, is considered illogical under a free trade regime that is supposed to work, equitable to all countries. The idea behind such a demand is that foods coming from far off places like New Zealand, Australia, China, India etc reach the US after long see voyages spewing out large amounts of CO2, considered responsible for the green house effect and global warming. Here is a view from the industry regarding such restrictive practices that can ruin the livelihood of people in many developing countries.

"The American Meat Institute (AMI) Friday told the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) violates the United States' international trade obligations for many reasons and that the U.S. must honor these obligations. The comments were provided in response to a December 4, 2009, Federal Register Notice. Canada and Mexico in late 2009 filed a case against the United States with the World Trade Organization (WTO), a move that came as no surprise given those countries' outspoken opposition to the labeling law when it was under consideration by Congress".

Of all the countries Canada and Mexico are neighbors to the US and the CO2 story cannot gel with them. It is not realized that if such a reprehensible provision is made, food products from East Coast of the US may find it difficult to sell in the West Coast, the distance for the food to travel being more than 6000 km. Probably the labeling issue may be just a ruse to give protection to local foods and elbow out foreign products which invariably sell at lower prices. This must be taken seriously by WTO as a TBT measure by those countries implementing such labeling regime, violating the free trade spirit.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MARKETING "BRAIN" POWER-CONSUMER IN A LOSING BATTLE?

Food Industry and consumer activists are always at loggerheads regarding some of the practices being followed by the former which the latter consider as consumer unfriendly. Latest in this unequal bout is a treatise prepared in the US for consideration by the enforcement authorities containing some suggestions to improve the information content on the label and prevent unsubstantiated health claims. "Just as the year is ending, the tireless consumer advocacy group CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) has sent a 158 page report to the FDA, entitled Food Labeling Chaos – the case for reform. In it, the organization claims that nutrition labeling today is insufficient, and that existing regulations are too lax to deal with the marketing brainpower of the food industry. If you have a nutrition label addiction like we do, this report is awesome. The authors break the issues down into 3 areas: improving the nutrition facts panel, improving ingredient labels and stopping false and misleading health-related claims. They provide examples, from a wide range of product by Kellogg's , Nestlé, Gerber, Minute Maid, and others of why regulatory changes are needed ASAP": The comprehensive suggestions are note worthy and the instances cited in this report, though applicable to the US industry, are nonetheless useful to India also while improving the consumer perception about processed foods. FSSAI can learn a lesson or two from the report, if it has any serious concern about the safety and well being of Indian consumers. V.H.POTTY http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/ http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FOOD AND CO2 EMISSION-NEW LABELING INITIATIVES

Sweden is in the forefront as far as the control of greenhouse gas emission is concerned taking unilateral initiatives, instead of waiting for any global consensus that is eluding the world due to unwillingness of many developed countries to cut down on emissions. World average emission is estimate at about 1688 kilogram of oil equivalent (kgoe) per person where as in India it is less than 30% of the above figure. A rich country like USA emits 7900 kgoe of CO2 per person!. Economic aspirations of developing countries can be met only if they are not pressurized to cut down on emissions very drastically as fossil fuel is the main driving engine for progress, in the absence of any viable alternate option. This was orchestrated by no less a person than Prime Minister of India Dr Manmohan Singh when he said recently that India would not agree for drastic reduction of such emissions that would choke its economic growth.

Food sector both production and processing is known to be a source of heavy CO2 emissions and it is believed that the eating practices world over must change shifting more towards foods with less and less carbon print. The initiative in Sweden envisages declaring on the label CO2 emission caused by each product before arriving at the market shelf. "The Swedish effort grew out of a 2005 study by Sweden's national environmental agency on how personal consumption generates emissions. Researchers found that 25 percent of national per capita emissions — two metric tons per year — was attributable to eating. The government realized that encouraging a diet that tilted more toward chicken or vegetables and educating farmers on lowering emissions generally could have an enormous impact. Sweden has been a world leader in finding new ways to reduce emissions. It has vowed to eliminate the use of fossil fuel for electricity by 2020 and cars that run on gasoline by 2030"

Obviously there is a disconnect between the intention behind such a move and the preparedness of the consumer to understand and appreciate the initiative. Abstract numbers of CO2 emission may not carry much meaning unless it is correlated to a scale of acceptable to unacceptable figures and consumer is educated about understanding the concept. Probably in a country like Sweden this could be done with little effort as environmental awareness there is high and per capita income is one of the highest in the world. Eventually every country will have to emulate Sweden, if this planet is to be saved from misery and destruction through environmental degradation. .

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"TRAFFIC LIGHT" LABEL-SOME HELP FOR CONSUMER!

Consumers are increasingly being confused by some of the information contained in the labels of food packets though industry is trying to be more and more transparent declaring even the percentage of each ingredient that go in making their products. Attempts are continuing to simplify the mechanism of making the label more and more consumer friendly though no single system, considered satisfactory, has yet been established. Neither the 'Smart Choice' System of USA nor the 'Traffic Light' System in UK is considered perfect though it is a good beginning.

Here is how the Traffic Light system works for guiding the consumer."If we want to eat a healthy diet, one of the key things we should be doing is trying to cut down on fat (especially saturated fat), salt and added sugars. Food products with traffic light labels on the front of the pack show you at-a-glance if the food you are thinking about buying has high, medium or low amounts of fat, saturated fat, sugars and salt, helping you get a better balance.In addition to traffic light colors you will also see the number of grams of fat, saturated fat, sugars and salt in what the manufacturer or retailer suggests as a 'serving' of the food".

Traffic lights are basically three in number and each label indicates percentage of red, amber and green components reflecting the relative nutrient and health values. If red is predominant, it may be rich in calories, fat, sugar or salt and caution needs to be exercised in selecting such foods too frequently. Low values or absence of red on the label is supposed to be safe for regular consumption. It is not an "absolute" system but a comparative indication to choose from a plethora of similar products on the shelves.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

BRANDED FOODS-WHERE LIES THE TRUTH

No matter how long we debate the issue of misleading promotional practices in the food industry sector, the impact of public opinion is often limited because those who perpetrate deceit on consumers through false or bloated claims, some of them very absurd, believe that public memory is short. There are hundreds of instances when industry gets away with obvious malpractices because of public apathy and laxity of the enforcement agencies. Vast scientific reports that get projected in the media often confuse even the knowledgeable consumers, let alone the layman. But an informed consumer can always play a role by bringing to limelight some of the actions of the industry and share the same with fellow consumers.

Here is what a conscientious consumer has to say about woes of a typical buyer in a grocery store or a super market. "With the ridiculous and misleading claims that are made on the packaging of many foods, it can be difficult to differentiate the truth from devious marketing. This is important because the failure to make this distinction can have a significant impact on your health and wellbeing".

In a country like India such mislabeling and dubious claims can go unchecked allowing the culprits to get away scotfree. As for the consumer, limited competition, uncertainties regarding the safety of products manufactured by small processors and intense advertising by the big fishes leave very little choice but to buy these products at the price demanded on the label. Probably consumer is more concerned about health and the common perception is that such protection is assured only with branded products.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com