Food nutrition labelling in the "too hard basket" for many shoppers

Oct 1 2008

A series of almost weekly food scares from China and the U.S. have made many consumers more aware of what goes into a food product and concern over where the ingredients are sourced from, but experts suggest many shoppers 'ignore food label schemes'.

In the last decade a variety of labelling schemes have emerged and as a result experts say there is a danger food labelling could end up being ignored by a large number of shoppers.

A study by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in Britain has found that a "significant" proportion did not consider the labels when they buying treats such as cakes, because they already know such goodies are bad for them but want to "indulge" themselves.

The research also revealed this was the case in buying supposedly basic essentials such as flour and butter where the labels were ignored.

The research found it was clear that consumers welcome and want labelling on the front of packs and are frequently using them to make informed their choices.

The FSA is funding research by a group of experts led by Sue Duncan, a former chief social researcher for the government, to examine the influence of the variety of food labelling schemes in existence.

While the group is independent it has the support of both the food industry and campaigners who want a consensus on the issue and follows retailers adopting a range of approaches with some using guideline daily amounts showing the percentage of daily recommended fat, sugar and salt intake each serving contains.

The FSA is in favour of a traffic light system where red means high levels of fat or sugar and some super market chains have adopted a hybrid of the two systems.

The group will publish its final report based on an in-depth survey of 3,000 people next year but early findings, based on snapshot surveys involving 200 people, found a number of issues.

As well as a tendency for some to ignore labelling when buying treats or basic ingredients, researchers also found people were likely to be influenced by manufacturers health claims such as the product being "low in fat" - to add to the problem, while people took the nutritional information into account when shopping, some were less likely to do so when putting together a meal at home.

The preliminary research also showed there was a degree of confusion about the labels being used, partly because of the variation in schemes being used but also confusion over the labelling system itself.

The areas of confusion include the use of colours in the various schemes, understanding information about portion sizes and interpreting and using numerical information.

The three main schemes used are:-

• Monochrome schemes providing information on percentage of Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) in a portion of the food.

• Traffic light colour-coded schemes which indicate the nutrient level per 100g and amount in a portion of the food.

• Hybrid schemes which provide both a traffic light colour code per 100g and percentage of GDA in a portion of the food.

Experts say the debate will continue about which style of labelling is best, but the bottom line is the real challenge remains reaching consumers who simply do not look for nutrition information at all.

The FSA says the final study will provide robust new evidence on how the three types of labelling schemes used in the marketplace are working and highlight the elements that are most effective in helping shoppers to make healthier choices.