Traffic Light Labelling

PUBLIC HEALTH

TRAFFIC LIGHT LABELLING: STILL (BAD FOR) NUTS Ursula Arens Writer; Nutrition & Dietetics Ursula has a degree in dietetics, and currently works as a freelance nutrition writer. She has been a columnist on nutrition for more than 30 years.

REFERENCES Please visit the Subscriber zone at NHDmag.com

Red, amber, or green coding on food labels to indicate three levels of one of four nutrient categories, has been around for a while. It is a simple way to communicate nutrition information and many assessments show that consumers prefer colours to numbers.

Although traffic light labelling (TLL) is ‘voluntary’, unlike mandatory nutrition information labelling on packaged foods, it is encouraged to support consumer interpretation of numeric information. Where used, it must be presented in the standard format that we are all now very familiar with.

Five of the largest food manufacturers in Europe have proposed the Evolved Nutrition Label (ENL). The big difference suggested in the evolved format of traffic light information, is the criteria for colour coding to be calculated per portion of food, compared to TLL criteria per 100g of food. The gang of five are The Coca-Cola Company, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever. The food company Mars had been an original member of the ENL grouping, but dropped out in April 2018 because they stated concerns over the many critiques from consumer groups that portion size declarations on labels could be reduced to the point

that all-greens /no-reds could be achieved by any product. A small-enough piece of chocolate (the kind served at ambassador parties) would be labelled all-green on the ENL model, despite being 90% sugar and fat. But the current per portion versus per 100g discussions are only one aspect of the now-buried traffic light disputes.

My heart sinks when I hear consumer groups and dietitians declare the victory and success of TLL as the great support to healthier food choices.

Rather, TLL is as deceptive as the hall of bendy-mirrors at a theme park. Is there evidence that the presence of TLLs on UK food products can be shown to have improved consumer food choices?

There is never a response to my tiresome probes on this question. Here I discuss why I think the traffic light labelling system is more muddle than help for consumer understanding of healthy nutrition.

Reason one: mile-wide bands: forever amber Amber bands are wide; fat content, for example, spans 3-17.5g/100g food, so a great diversity of foods will register as exchangeable on the amber scale. Foods with 2g or 18g of fat will be misleadingly viewed as ‘very different’ in terms of their fat content due to green or red banding, when actually their nutrient contents may be very close to amber labelled foods. The wide bands are too blunt to make choices between similar foods, so choice selected as similar will cover foods that may have significant nutritional differences.

Reason two: magnify and minify Foods which are consumed in much smaller or larger amounts than 100g (the reference point) will have impressions of their nutrient content made bigger or smaller by the colour coding. So small-portion dry foods will appear to contribute more to intakes of fat/sugar/ salt actually consumed, compared to large-portion high-moisture foods. This punishes breakfast cereals and benefits soups, for example. www.NHDmag.com

53

PUBLIC HEALTH Reason three: goal post fluckiness For any system where there are cut-offs, there is most joy or anguish for those on the edge. Most recipe modification will be done where nudging can move foods from red to amber, or amber to green. Changes not resulting in colour banding switches lack incentive. Reformulation drives have the random element of nutrient contents being close to cut-offs.

Reason four: green does not mean good - it means not bad Green on TLL is supposed to mean healthier choice/eat more. However, this is not based on health-promoting nutrients and rather less on health-diminishing fats and sugars and salt. This allows pasta and rice-based dishes, or some low-fat chip brands to get all-greens labelling. In contrast, pistachio nuts (as labelled by Sainsbury’s) gets three reds and one orange. This matches the poor diet score of chocolate fudge cake, although, surely, snacking on nuts should be lauded more nutritionally? Is plain starch really the healthiest food choice?

Reason five: apples and oranges Model questions in assessment surveys given to consumers indicating choices between more green or more red buttons allow easy responses. However, the confetti of colours within products and within a shopping trolley are more difficult to assess. So, which is healthier: the product with two greens and two reds, or the product with four ambers? This is the trap that assumes ‘common currency’ and so interchange between colours. The question is a nonsense of course, because consuming less fat, for example, does not accommodate concerns over higher intakes of salt and vice versa. Advising consumers to choose a balance of colours with more greens than reds is impossible when making real food choices in real environments and it is not clear that the nutritional quality of overall diets is improved.

Reason six: double tracks The banding for colour cut-offs is assessed per 100g of food. The numeric information within the colour buttons is per declared portion. So, information based on two different scales, per 100g and per portion, is presented together. This can lead to amount declarations on a red button for fat/sat/sugars/salt containing less of a nutrient per serving for one product, compared to an amber button on another product (because of portion size differences).

How can any consumer who actually reads labels not be confused?

dieteticJOBS.co.uk dieteticJOBS.co.uk

• Quarter page to full page • Premier & Universal placement listings • NHD website, NH-eNews and Network Health Digest placements

To place an ad or discuss your requirements please call (local rate) 54

www.NHDmag.com

01342 824073