Comments on: Why traffic light labelling of foods won’t work

By: Steve Pratt

Steve Pratt — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 04:47:00 +0000

Thanks Bill. I have no quarrel with that premise – indeed it is a long-standing concern of mine

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 01:37:07 +0000

Hello Paul. Yes, I agree with you. Regards, Bill

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:04:13 +0000

Total fat in particular is a problem for this style of labelling.

However, a good case can be made for sodium.

Milligram amounts on labels are always going to be hard to understand. %DI based on a target which is not consistent with chronic disease (2300mg) is worse.

Manufacturers need a greater incentive to bring low sodium products to market. A green light can give a marketing advantage to this.

Until then, will we keep hearing people say they don’t each much salt, while consuming cornflakes, vegemite and corned beef?

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:54:31 +0000

Hello Geoff
At the heart of your comment is a belief that if the general public could only understand how much fat and sugar was in their food they would become healthier and not gain weight. I’m sorry. These parameters are just not linked with health and body weight.
What is the point of better communicating the wrong information?
Regards, Bill

By: Lamby

Lamby — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:50:51 +0000

I think you are trying to over complicate things.

This is for the 90% of the population that don’t read food labels or really understand nutrition.

I don’t think traffic lights are perfect, but I think the concept is right.

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:56:36 +0000

Hi Steve. One thing I never do is assume that the general public is simple.
Can I put it too you that the reason nutritionists can’t agree on our measures of success is that many of our measures are not evidence-based and therefore are open to challenge? Regards, Bill

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:50:00 +0000

Hi Liz. Firstly, I think Sanitarium needs to be congratulated for supporting the HES project. It has driven the debate along and put some ideas out there. We need plenty of creativity and debate on this issue.
The idea of an overall interpretation of the nutrition information i.e. ‘eat often’, would certainly be appreciated by consumers. However, apportioning a red colour to the ‘eat sparingly’ foods would be resisted strongly by sections of the food industry. No company wants a red flag on its products, full stop. Personally, I think we need to be a little pragmatic on this issue.
Didn’t Sanitarium produce another front-of-pack labelling system which was a continuum, with more or less stars per product? A system that reflects the shades of grey is attractive as it gets away from the idea of goods and bad foods, which generates a lot of hostility.
The criteria for any model are critical. In relation to the HES criteria, there is a whole food criterion (fruit, veg, grains, nuts, seeds) as well as a fibre criterion, which could be criticised for considering similar qualities twice. Saturated fat (in isolation) doesn’t work as a criterion. People really need to get their head around this – the science in relation to saturated fat has changed.
And I struggle with ‘added’ sugar. For a start, you can’t analyse for added sugar, so it’s not practical. More importantly, if sugar is bad for us we firstly need to see the scientific argument. Then we need to see sugar criteria applied universally. For too long nutritionists have been saying sugar is bad, but not sugar in fruits. And fat is bad, but not fat in nuts. If criteria can’t be applied objectively across all relevant foods then there is something wrong with the criteria.
Regards, Bill

By: Steve Pratt

Steve Pratt — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:14:01 +0000

Apologies, I unintentionally posted this previously under a pseudonym.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that TL labeling is *the* solution. Consequently, I think your definition of “work” is unrealistic and unhelpful.

The truth is we don’t know the heuristic processes people use to choose food. Your rebuttal assumes one – rather simplistic – heuristic model. In my experience the public are not as simple as we too often assume them to be.

It’s easy to build straw men, it is much harder to suggest practical alternative solutions. Perhaps traffic light labeling of foods won’t work simply because we can’t agree on our measures of success.

By: Liz Munn

Liz Munn — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:29:41 +0000

Hi Bill – I agree there are inherent problems in a simple traffic light approach. Have you given any consideration to the Healthy Eating System developed by Sanitarium? It tested well in terms of understanding and appropriate interpretation, and gives a much richer picture of the food, discriminating well between foods according to modelling. There’s more scope for development, which is why Sanitarium released it freely for review. You can find the report here: http://www.sanitarium.com.au/~/media/sanitarium/about-us/traffic-light-report.ashx
[Declaration: I worked on the HES and consult for Sanitarium.]

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:09:01 +0000

Hello Jenny. Thanks for highlighting this report. To me there is a mixture of good and bad in this model. On the positive side there is a focus on protein and vegetables, which (together) is a surrogate for nutrient density – all about meeting essential nutrient requirements.
However, the nutrients of concern are essentially the same as those I discussed in my post. The UK model uses energy rather than total fat, but energy density is largely driven by fat (and water) content. This model basically says ‘fat is bad for you’ and that is just wrong in science. The idea that eating high energy foods makes people fat is a myth (see my earlier post on this issue).
Using saturated fat alone i.e. not considering its replacement macronutrient, also discriminates wrongly against fat. Admittedly, this model was put together before this aspect of the science became clear in 2009.
If you were to put any unsaturated vegetable oil through this model e.g. canola, sunflower or olive oil, it would generate negative points for energy and saturated fat. However, the use of unsaturated oils in place of saturated fats is one of the few dietary strategies that has been tested in randomised controlled trials with clinical end points, and the results were beneficial. How can a good model discriminate against these oils? Can I quote Willett again? … a reduction in total fat can actually be harmful if healthful fats are preferentially reduced.
The use of ‘non-milk extrinsic sugars’ as a criterion stretches credulity. Is there a scientific study anywhere in the world that links this factor with any health outcome? Nutrient dilution is the only potential concern with sugar-rich foods and beverages and this should be captured with nutrient density measures.
This model is locked into old hypotheses and belief systems that just don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny today.
Regards, Bill