Hailed in some quarters, and with me, as an unnecessary 'nanny-state' imposition the planned introduction of a traffic-light system on food packaging will not be taken up by Tesco and Morrisons, two of the UK's largest supermarket chains.
The UK's Food Standards Agency has been planning for months to introduce the nationwide scheme as an easy way for consumers to check if food is healthy or harmful. I mean how difficult is it to know that chocolate coated hobnobs ain't that good for you without having to stamp the packet with a red circle? Tesco also raised concerns that things like apples - with high sugar content - would also have a red circle.
While other supermarkets such as Waitrose are (or were) planning to comply with the voluntary scheme many food producers such as Kraft Foods, Danone, Kellogg's , Pepsi and Nestle were not.
DIY Foods: Making homemade sausage
Cakes so amazing they'd be hard to cut into
Fruit juice: An invitation to diabetes?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-11-2006 @ 1:44PM
Matt said...
So correctly labelling foods in an easy-to-read fashion is a "nanny state" imposition? Wow, how Orwellian can you get when putting facts on the food label is government intrusion?
Yes, if they're going to label apples at all, the label should read "high sugar" if the apple is, in fact, high in sugar. That's what factual labels do - and the information is important to people with diabetes or other blood sugar problems.
The point is not that "chocolate hobnobs are bad for you," the point is that food manufacturers have spent most of the past three decades trying to make their foods look healthier than they are so you'll buy and eat them. "Made with real juice" was big until they had to start displaying "5% juice" on the label. Take a look here - (http://www.cspinet.org/new/200510272_print.html) - at some the ways that US manfacturers are still trying to fool buyers into thinking their food products are something they're not: "fruit juice" snacks for babies that have more corn syrup and sugar than fruit; pancakes "made with whole wheat and whole grain" that have more sugar than either (a rude surprise to diabetics); strawberry "100% fruit" spread that's only 30% strawberries, and more.
The only reason to fight factual, easy-to-understand food labelling is a fear that people won't buy the food if they know what's really in it - or your own cognitive dissonance that you do know what's in it and don't want to be reminded. Sorry, I say let the facts be told and let people make up their own minds. It's the "nanny state" mentality that says we poor eaters can't be bothered with facts, and that we should just shut up and believe whatever they tell us or the Easter Bunny won't bring any chocolate eggs.
Reply
3-11-2006 @ 2:50PM
Hawk said...
I guess the problem here is that people think apples are healthy, but if there's a big red dot on apples that says "WARNING HIGH IN FREAKIN' SUGAR ARRGH" they're not going to buy healthy stuff like apples any more.
Otherwise, I say that food should be completely and truthfully labeled.
One thing I think would be really nice is nutritional labeling and ingredients made mandatory for liquor, beer, and wine.
I don't know about other countries, but in the United States there is no labelling requirement for alcohol. I don't even think you have to say how much alcohol is in it if it's less than 5%.
What kind of double standard is that? It's the same with cigarettes. Just because we all 'know' they're bad for us doesn't mean we don't deserve to know just how bad.
Reply