Market

Market
Showing posts with label nutrition information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nutrition information. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

MORE TRANSPARENCY IN MEAT LABELING-NEW US INITIATIVE

It has been a mystery as to why meat products made in the US never had labels declaring the nutritional content while all packed foods carried such information on the front of the pack  conspicuously. Interestingly most safety episodes that occurred in the country had their origin in the meat packing houses, probably because of failure to follow strictly the recommended slaughtering and handling practices by the industry. While nutrient composition may not have anything to do with product safety per se, it still serves the purpose of persuading the consumers to ponder over the implications of consuming meat products because of the presence in them of cholesterol and saturated fat besides total lack of fiber. It is gratifying to see that the above anomaly is sought to be rectified by the authorities concerned through mandatory notification. Here is a take on this development.   

"US consumers will now have convenient access to important nutritional information about the raw meat and poultry products they most frequently purchase, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Under a new FSIS rule, packages of ground or chopped meat and poultry, such as hamburger or ground turkey, will now feature nutrition facts panels on their labels. Additionally, 40 of the most popular whole, raw cuts of meat and poultry, such as chicken breast or steak, will also have nutritional information either on the package labels or on display to consumers at the store. "Providing nutrition information on meat and poultry products in the store gives shoppers a clearer sense of the options available, allowing them to purchase items that are most appropriate for their families' needs," said Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen. "These new labels mark a significant step in the agency's efforts to help consumers make more informed food purchase decisions."  The new nutrition facts panels will list the number of calories and the grams of total fat and saturated fat that a product contains. For example, consumers will be able to compare the calories and fat content for ground turkey versus ground beef, or for pork chops versus chicken breasts, right in the store. Additionally, a ground or chopped product that includes on its label a lean percentage statement, such as "85% lean," and is not considered "low in fat" also will list its fat percentage, making it easier for consumers to understand the amounts of lean and fat content in a particular product. Consumers will no longer have to guess which products fit their diets". 

The anomaly in the food safety monitoring system in the US can be attributed to the fact that two distinct agencies are involved dealing with safety aspects, USDA and FDA and synchronization of the rules between them is happening too slowly allowing the meat and poultry industry to take liberty with the quality and safety of products they make. Besides inadequate inspection of processing facilities due to shortage of qualified personnel is great handicap faced by the enforcement agency concerned. Politicking with food safety between the two major parties is adding further uncertainty to the situation. While one party is totally aligned with and committed to the interests of food industry over riding consumer concerns, the other is not bold enough to think or plan any thing to resist the lobbyists who exercise enormous influence on the political class in general. The new mandatory labeling regulations for meat products therefore can be considered a huge success to the harried citizens of this country. 
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF "FRONT OF PACK" SYMBOLS-NEW FINDINGS

Lately a disturbing question being asked about nutrition labeling pertains to the extent of understanding consumer has after reading them and whether this leads to buying better products in the end? Of course there cannot be a straight answer to the above doubts. Those who advocate inclusion of symbols or familiar recognizable icons to present a graphic message about the quality of food inside a packet, believe that most consumers do not read the label and many do not understand even if they read. What about the experience in countries where there are millions of English illiterate population which cannot even read the label let alone understand? Probably symbols or icons will be more useful under such situations. Before switching over to new concepts, one must clearly foresee the favorable as well as negative impact of the new system. Here is the result of a small study on this subject which is interesting. 

"Consumers in the U.S. have faced an onslaught of front-of-package nutrition symbols, including the "Smart Choices" single summary indicator, and manufacturer symbols from Pepsico, Kellogg's, Mars, Kraft, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Due to their simplicity and suggested ease of use, the intent of the symbols is to help consumers make better choices in constructing a balanced diet. New research published by the American Marketing Association finds that consumers' intent to buy a product (with some negative nutrient levels) increases when the package features front-of-pack nutrition symbols compared to when it does not. However, simple symbols can lull consumers into thinking a food is more healthful than it may actually be".

Food is a complex material containing hundreds of chemical molecules with different structure and nutritional role and any attempt to simplify it is not going to be easy. Whether traffic light symbol or any other method that tries to categorize foods into clear compartments will face enormous practical difficulties since both negative and positive aspects of health impact have to be taken into reckoning. The existing mode of nutrition labeling has served well for many years and if past experience is factored into any modified or improved version, consumers may be benefited to some extent. Whether these facts can be communicated in local languages is a matter to be considered. May be for a country like India, inclusion of symbols or icons still may be useful considering the extent of illiteracy prevalent.

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