Manufacturers are perplexed that the FSA is calling for calorie cuts and marketing initiatives as part of its satfat consultations. Nick Hughes finds out why
The food industry has long resigned itself to the inevitability of satfat reductions. So when the FSA memo arrived last week announcing a consultation on recommendations for satfat and sugar reductions, it was greeted with grudging acceptance rather than outright opposition.
Suppliers of chocolate confectionery, biscuits, cakes, pastries and buns are being asked to cut satfats by up to 10% by 2012 compared with 2008’s level, with further consultation on dairy, meat lines and savoury snacks later this year. But although most of the recommendations were expected, two particular details worry suppliers.
The first involves calorie reduction. “Reformulation to reduce saturated fat levels ... should be accompanied by a calorie reduction unless a technical case can be made that this is not achievable,” says one clause.
Manufacturers argue that satfat and calorie reduction are not inextricably linked. On the contrary, replacing fats to minimise saturates has no impact on calories. Cutting calories can only be achieved by using fat replacers, which requires huge investment and technical challenges as it necessitates rebuilding a product from scratch.
“This is something that mystifies me,” says Barbara Gallani, BCCC sector manager at the FDF. “If you want to reduce satfats and reduce calories at the same time you can’t just do a replacement of fats, you need to look at more drastic innovation, even whole new products using fat replacers.”
Gallani claims that calorie reduction did not form part of the industry’s initial discussions with the FSA. “All the discussion revolved around changing from satfats to blends, which are fats but which do not have saturates in them. That would not have an effect on the calorie content.”
The FSA concedes that pound-for-pound satfat and calorie reduction is not always technically feasible but says where this is the case, manufacturers should look at alternative ways of taking energy out of products.
“I know, having talked to some suppliers, that even where there was no possibility of reducing calories because it was a one-for-one fat substitution, they were taking the opportunity to see if the portion size could be made slightly smaller or whether the balance of pastry filling could be changed,” says Stephen Airey, head of the FSA satfat and energy programme.
The other proposal that has raised eyebrows requires businesses to “use their marketing programmes to encourage preferences for healthier options”, advice that appears to ignore the numerous marketing regulations.
Chocolate, cakes and biscuits are forbidden from advertising to kids because of their poor nutrient profile. Small cuts in satfats and sugar are unlikely to bring them inside Ofcom rules. “The big concern is how can we market the reformulations?” says one industry source. “There are all sorts of restrictions in the mix.”
Indeed, new regulation from the EU will make it even harder for manufacturers to market healthier options. An annexe of the Nutrition Claims Regulation will mean that from January 2010, claims including ‘X% less fat’, ‘no added salt’ and ‘extra light’ will be outlawed.
“How are you going to communicate your message to consumers?” says the source. “If the Nutrition Claims restrictions stay as they are, which they are likely to do, I’m not sure how companies can possibly commit to do this kind of marketing.”
Airey concedes that in some cases manufacturers have their hands tied. “I accept that sort of idea would have to play out differently in different sectors. But we’d encourage businesses to look across the whole of their marketing and see what opportunity there is to emphasise healthier alternatives.”
Manufacturers have until November 3 to submit responses. Some reformulation of the wording is likely to be high on the agenda.
The food industry has long resigned itself to the inevitability of satfat reductions. So when the FSA memo arrived last week announcing a consultation on recommendations for satfat and sugar reductions, it was greeted with grudging acceptance rather than outright opposition.
Suppliers of chocolate confectionery, biscuits, cakes, pastries and buns are being asked to cut satfats by up to 10% by 2012 compared with 2008’s level, with further consultation on dairy, meat lines and savoury snacks later this year. But although most of the recommendations were expected, two particular details worry suppliers.
The first involves calorie reduction. “Reformulation to reduce saturated fat levels ... should be accompanied by a calorie reduction unless a technical case can be made that this is not achievable,” says one clause.
Manufacturers argue that satfat and calorie reduction are not inextricably linked. On the contrary, replacing fats to minimise saturates has no impact on calories. Cutting calories can only be achieved by using fat replacers, which requires huge investment and technical challenges as it necessitates rebuilding a product from scratch.
“This is something that mystifies me,” says Barbara Gallani, BCCC sector manager at the FDF. “If you want to reduce satfats and reduce calories at the same time you can’t just do a replacement of fats, you need to look at more drastic innovation, even whole new products using fat replacers.”
Gallani claims that calorie reduction did not form part of the industry’s initial discussions with the FSA. “All the discussion revolved around changing from satfats to blends, which are fats but which do not have saturates in them. That would not have an effect on the calorie content.”
The FSA concedes that pound-for-pound satfat and calorie reduction is not always technically feasible but says where this is the case, manufacturers should look at alternative ways of taking energy out of products.
“I know, having talked to some suppliers, that even where there was no possibility of reducing calories because it was a one-for-one fat substitution, they were taking the opportunity to see if the portion size could be made slightly smaller or whether the balance of pastry filling could be changed,” says Stephen Airey, head of the FSA satfat and energy programme.
The other proposal that has raised eyebrows requires businesses to “use their marketing programmes to encourage preferences for healthier options”, advice that appears to ignore the numerous marketing regulations.
Chocolate, cakes and biscuits are forbidden from advertising to kids because of their poor nutrient profile. Small cuts in satfats and sugar are unlikely to bring them inside Ofcom rules. “The big concern is how can we market the reformulations?” says one industry source. “There are all sorts of restrictions in the mix.”
Indeed, new regulation from the EU will make it even harder for manufacturers to market healthier options. An annexe of the Nutrition Claims Regulation will mean that from January 2010, claims including ‘X% less fat’, ‘no added salt’ and ‘extra light’ will be outlawed.
“How are you going to communicate your message to consumers?” says the source. “If the Nutrition Claims restrictions stay as they are, which they are likely to do, I’m not sure how companies can possibly commit to do this kind of marketing.”
Airey concedes that in some cases manufacturers have their hands tied. “I accept that sort of idea would have to play out differently in different sectors. But we’d encourage businesses to look across the whole of their marketing and see what opportunity there is to emphasise healthier alternatives.”
Manufacturers have until November 3 to submit responses. Some reformulation of the wording is likely to be high on the agenda.
No comments yet