Much of the food and drink industry has seen red over what it believes is the government’s determination to introduce a single traffic-light labelling system. But the industry has alternatives in mind and consumers also have their views. Liz Hamson reports
Throughout our Junk the Spin campaign, we have argued that a single traffic-light labelling system is overly simplistic and would unfairly demonise certain foods. Judging by the phenomenal feedback we have received, many of you agree.
Yet despite widespread opposition, the minister for public health, Melanie Johnson, last week refused to rule out the introduction of such a scheme (October 16, p4 and pp36-37) and last month Tesco and the Co-operative Group went ahead with their controversial nutrition labelling trials.
So The Grocer has set out to determine how real the threat is from the government and what the practical alternatives to traffic-light labelling are. We also ask the Co-op and Tesco for a progress report on their trials and report on a consumer focus group (see over) to demonstrate why the industry should say no to a traffic-light labelling system.
As soon as the health and food debate kicked off in earnest this year, the government joined the pressure groups in thrusting the spotlight on the food and drink industry, neatly shifting the focus from the responsibility of the government and consumers. As well as considering a ban on advertising to children, launching a responsible drinking campaign and calling for more detail on product reformulation strategies - most recently salt reduction policies - the government said it wanted to see nutritional labelling simplified to help consumers make the right choices. And two retailers seemed to agree.
Last month, the Co-operative Group, which has used a high, medium and low labelling system for salt, fat and calories on its own label products for many years, launched a nutritional information trial in 10 stores. The trial involved shelf-edge labelling showing levels of salt, fat and calories in 300 major brands as well as point of sale leaflets on guideline daily amounts, 5-a-day leaflets and recipe cards.
Exit interviews with the shoppers in the five London and five Glasgow stores have been encouraging, says David Croft, head of Co-op brand at the Co-operative Group. “The feedback from customers has been generally positive. A few people have said that they don’t need all that information, but most have welcomed it.”
He adds that the Co-op proposition differs from single traffic-light labelling in that a context for the high, medium and low information is provided.
“The idea is to try to put nutritional information into context so people do not feel they are being preached to. Colour-coding is something that we have not done. We have to be wary of being simplistic. It’s about giving information to consumers so they can choose.”
The trial has been restricted to breakfast cereals, biscuits, international cuisine, cooking sauces and ready meals and similar interviews.
Exit interviews with shoppers at five control stores in each of the two cities have been conducted by way of comparison.
Croft admits that the Co-op will be closely scrutinising the impact on sales as well as shopper behaviour. Yet, although several of the manufacturers involved have privately admitted to us they are unhappy with the scheme, which they think will cede ownership of their brands to the retailer, Croft insists there has been no negative feedback.
He adds that a change in sales patterns is not a foregone conclusion: “There might not be a shift in a particular category because people will be balancing their whole diet.”
This is unlikely to reassure manufacturers which are monitoring the situation with some anxiety as The Co-operative Group prepares to submit its findings to the FSA.
Far more alarming for many is the prospect that Tesco will introduce a traffic light labelling system. As one source puts it bluntly: “If Tesco does it, everyone will.”
A Tesco spokeswoman confirms that it launched a trial last month involving consumer focus groups, customer panels and merchandising trials and that a number of different labelling systems are currently being assessed.
However, fuelling speculation that the retailer is getting cold feet over traffic lights, she adds: “We’re pulling together feedback. Nothing will be decided until next year.”
Meanwhile, the rest of the industry is beginning to throw its weight behind an alternative to traffic lights - an extension of the IGD’s voluntary nutrition labelling guidelines followed by many retailers and many manufacturers.
The IGD is considering broadening the scope of children’s Guideline Daily Amounts. Jane Whiteley, head of external communications, admits that developing children’s GDAs would not be easy because of the number of age bands that would have to be decided and the impracticality of printing more than one or two on a limited amount of on-pack space. “This is a complex area. Nutrition requirements for children vary with age,” she says.
It is one of several initiatives to extend GDAs that are being considered, says Joanne Denney-Finch, chief executive of IGD, says: “The GDA voluntary nutrition labelling guidelines were the result of several years’ collaboration between retailers, manufacturers, consumer organisations, government and other interested parties and are widely used across the food industry.
“They are also supported by bodies such as the British Nutrition Foundation and British Dietetics Association and, importantly, are underpinned by national consumer research. The industry continues to look at ways to improve their use.”
However, Whiteley refuses to be drawn on whether the scope of the existing GDAs (see box) should be extended to salt and sugar.
Meanwhile, the FSA will soon be studying the results of the Co-operative Group trial and is understood to be considering extending GDAs to front as well as rear of pack. A spokeswoman says: “We’re looking at a whole range of things relating to nutritional profiling.”
Whatever the outcome of the current debate, the consensus is that the industry needs a standardised system. Denney-Finch says: “From the consumer’s perspective the most important factor is that industry adopts a consistent approach to any new labelling scheme. We believe GDAs give consumers accurate nutrition data on which to make their own informed decisions.”
Christine Fisk, FDF media and parliamentary relations manager, agrees that a GDA-based system makes the most sense. “As we set out in our manifesto, we are committed to GDAs. Traffic lights aren’t going to help consumers achieve a balanced diet. The problem with a simplistic system like this is that it doesn’t put food into context. Consumers don’t get the whole picture.”
The other question is whether any scheme should be mandatory. Fisk argues: “This is already a highly regulated area. I don’t know whether we’re looking for more regulation. Labelling legislation comes from Europe. If the government does decide to go to Europe to try to make this mandatory, we’ve said we’d put to Europe the demerits of a simplistic traffic-light labelling system and the merits of GDAs.”
Croft agrees: “The indication is clear from the health select committee that we need voluntary measures and not more legislation.” Nevertheless he is sanguine. “We’ve always supported sensible legislation if you can’t achieve compliance any other way.”
Nutrition claims
>>And what GDA means for the consumer
The industry is legally bound by the EC Nutrition Labelling Directive to support any nutrition claims made on packaged foodstuffs with nutrition information on the label.
The labelling may take one of two formats, and includes carbohydrates and fats, including saturates.
However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that most consumers understand neither format.
In its guidelines for voluntary nutrition labelling, published in 1998, the IGD also recommends the use of guideline daily amounts or GDAs on the labels.
Guideline daily amounts are not targets for individuals to aim for but simply guidelines which provide consumers with additional information which they can use to gain a better understanding of their daily consumption of calories fat and saturated fat.
Throughout our Junk the Spin campaign, we have argued that a single traffic-light labelling system is overly simplistic and would unfairly demonise certain foods. Judging by the phenomenal feedback we have received, many of you agree.
Yet despite widespread opposition, the minister for public health, Melanie Johnson, last week refused to rule out the introduction of such a scheme (October 16, p4 and pp36-37) and last month Tesco and the Co-operative Group went ahead with their controversial nutrition labelling trials.
So The Grocer has set out to determine how real the threat is from the government and what the practical alternatives to traffic-light labelling are. We also ask the Co-op and Tesco for a progress report on their trials and report on a consumer focus group (see over) to demonstrate why the industry should say no to a traffic-light labelling system.
As soon as the health and food debate kicked off in earnest this year, the government joined the pressure groups in thrusting the spotlight on the food and drink industry, neatly shifting the focus from the responsibility of the government and consumers. As well as considering a ban on advertising to children, launching a responsible drinking campaign and calling for more detail on product reformulation strategies - most recently salt reduction policies - the government said it wanted to see nutritional labelling simplified to help consumers make the right choices. And two retailers seemed to agree.
Last month, the Co-operative Group, which has used a high, medium and low labelling system for salt, fat and calories on its own label products for many years, launched a nutritional information trial in 10 stores. The trial involved shelf-edge labelling showing levels of salt, fat and calories in 300 major brands as well as point of sale leaflets on guideline daily amounts, 5-a-day leaflets and recipe cards.
Exit interviews with the shoppers in the five London and five Glasgow stores have been encouraging, says David Croft, head of Co-op brand at the Co-operative Group. “The feedback from customers has been generally positive. A few people have said that they don’t need all that information, but most have welcomed it.”
He adds that the Co-op proposition differs from single traffic-light labelling in that a context for the high, medium and low information is provided.
“The idea is to try to put nutritional information into context so people do not feel they are being preached to. Colour-coding is something that we have not done. We have to be wary of being simplistic. It’s about giving information to consumers so they can choose.”
The trial has been restricted to breakfast cereals, biscuits, international cuisine, cooking sauces and ready meals and similar interviews.
Exit interviews with shoppers at five control stores in each of the two cities have been conducted by way of comparison.
Croft admits that the Co-op will be closely scrutinising the impact on sales as well as shopper behaviour. Yet, although several of the manufacturers involved have privately admitted to us they are unhappy with the scheme, which they think will cede ownership of their brands to the retailer, Croft insists there has been no negative feedback.
He adds that a change in sales patterns is not a foregone conclusion: “There might not be a shift in a particular category because people will be balancing their whole diet.”
This is unlikely to reassure manufacturers which are monitoring the situation with some anxiety as The Co-operative Group prepares to submit its findings to the FSA.
Far more alarming for many is the prospect that Tesco will introduce a traffic light labelling system. As one source puts it bluntly: “If Tesco does it, everyone will.”
A Tesco spokeswoman confirms that it launched a trial last month involving consumer focus groups, customer panels and merchandising trials and that a number of different labelling systems are currently being assessed.
However, fuelling speculation that the retailer is getting cold feet over traffic lights, she adds: “We’re pulling together feedback. Nothing will be decided until next year.”
Meanwhile, the rest of the industry is beginning to throw its weight behind an alternative to traffic lights - an extension of the IGD’s voluntary nutrition labelling guidelines followed by many retailers and many manufacturers.
The IGD is considering broadening the scope of children’s Guideline Daily Amounts. Jane Whiteley, head of external communications, admits that developing children’s GDAs would not be easy because of the number of age bands that would have to be decided and the impracticality of printing more than one or two on a limited amount of on-pack space. “This is a complex area. Nutrition requirements for children vary with age,” she says.
It is one of several initiatives to extend GDAs that are being considered, says Joanne Denney-Finch, chief executive of IGD, says: “The GDA voluntary nutrition labelling guidelines were the result of several years’ collaboration between retailers, manufacturers, consumer organisations, government and other interested parties and are widely used across the food industry.
“They are also supported by bodies such as the British Nutrition Foundation and British Dietetics Association and, importantly, are underpinned by national consumer research. The industry continues to look at ways to improve their use.”
However, Whiteley refuses to be drawn on whether the scope of the existing GDAs (see box) should be extended to salt and sugar.
Meanwhile, the FSA will soon be studying the results of the Co-operative Group trial and is understood to be considering extending GDAs to front as well as rear of pack. A spokeswoman says: “We’re looking at a whole range of things relating to nutritional profiling.”
Whatever the outcome of the current debate, the consensus is that the industry needs a standardised system. Denney-Finch says: “From the consumer’s perspective the most important factor is that industry adopts a consistent approach to any new labelling scheme. We believe GDAs give consumers accurate nutrition data on which to make their own informed decisions.”
Christine Fisk, FDF media and parliamentary relations manager, agrees that a GDA-based system makes the most sense. “As we set out in our manifesto, we are committed to GDAs. Traffic lights aren’t going to help consumers achieve a balanced diet. The problem with a simplistic system like this is that it doesn’t put food into context. Consumers don’t get the whole picture.”
The other question is whether any scheme should be mandatory. Fisk argues: “This is already a highly regulated area. I don’t know whether we’re looking for more regulation. Labelling legislation comes from Europe. If the government does decide to go to Europe to try to make this mandatory, we’ve said we’d put to Europe the demerits of a simplistic traffic-light labelling system and the merits of GDAs.”
Croft agrees: “The indication is clear from the health select committee that we need voluntary measures and not more legislation.” Nevertheless he is sanguine. “We’ve always supported sensible legislation if you can’t achieve compliance any other way.”
Nutrition claims
>>And what GDA means for the consumer
The industry is legally bound by the EC Nutrition Labelling Directive to support any nutrition claims made on packaged foodstuffs with nutrition information on the label.
The labelling may take one of two formats, and includes carbohydrates and fats, including saturates.
However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that most consumers understand neither format.
In its guidelines for voluntary nutrition labelling, published in 1998, the IGD also recommends the use of guideline daily amounts or GDAs on the labels.
Guideline daily amounts are not targets for individuals to aim for but simply guidelines which provide consumers with additional information which they can use to gain a better understanding of their daily consumption of calories fat and saturated fat.
No comments yet