Chewing over food labelling

By GEOFF CUMMING

Natalie Lloyd cruises the supermarket aisles as efficiently as any regular, the trolley holding baby Matthew stopping only as she picks up favoured food and groceries.

But even with trusted brands, there's a pause as she turns the packet over to pore over the contents panel. Cereals, biscuits, pasta, baby food, bread, soups and potato crisps come in for equal scrutiny.

With both her children suffering food allergies, she can't afford to take chances - and manufacturing processes do vary.

She picks up a fruit bar which differs from the one she normally buys, reads the contents and puts it back.

"You have to stick to basic things with one or two main ingredients," she says.

Shopping has been like this for Lloyd since 1995, when older child James had a severe allergic reaction at 7 1/2 months. Several panic-stricken hospital visits later, James' list of known allergens encompassed dairy foods, peanuts, soy, eggs, chicken, beef, peas and beans.

"It was frightening and frustrating," says Lloyd, president of Allergy New Zealand. "It was a huge process of elimination."

Seven years on, James has grown out of most of his allergies but Matthew reacts to milk - a hidden ingredient in many processed foods.

Lloyd says new labelling requirements for packaged foods, which become law next week, are a tremendous boost for allergy sufferers, who make up an estimated 10 to 15 per cent of the population.

But the requirements are aimed as much at ordinary consumers as at those with allergies, diabetics and others who must watch what they eat. And with Christmas largesse nearly upon us, the weighty question for ordinary consumers is: will the extra information do anything to change eating habits?

The new Food Standards Code forces manufacturers to be more open about their products - listing everything from common allergens to the percentage of saturated fat.

The code is part of a drive by health authorities to reduce obesity and associated health problems by ensuring we know more about what we put into our bodies.

So, the golf-ball-sized helping of fat inside some frozen meat pies must be listed (as a percentage) on the back of the box, along with the meat content, the pastry composition and the chemical additives.

Similarly, biscuit packets will have to state how much sugar, carbohydrates, protein and energy is contained in each serving.

In the past only products making nutritional claims had to give a breakdown of their ingredients - now all processed foods will.

Manufacturers must also say if products contain any of the common allergens - nuts, dairy products, seafood, eggs, gluten, sesame seeds, soy beans, sulphites and some bee products.

Implementing the code has cost the processed foods industry millions of dollars, not only to change labels on 35,000 products but in research to establish their nutritional benefits. For instance, claims that foods are calcium-enriched, high-fibre or high in omega oils have to be justified.

Lloyd says the new system will take the guesswork out for allergy sufferers. Until now, manufacturers have not had to reveal small percentages of ingredients such as milk or soy, forcing sufferers to make "risk assessments" on products.

Flavoured chips and noodles often trip sufferers up. "I know of several incidents where people have had life-threatening reactions when something is not declared on the label. It's really devastating because every accidental exposure reduces your chances of growing out of it."

For health authorities, the challenge is to get the general consumer as interested in nutrition and diet as special-interest shoppers such as Lloyd.

Health Ministry figures show 37 per cent of New Zealand adults are overweight and 17 per cent are obese. With poor diet contributing to diabetes, heart disease, costly hospital treatment and premature deaths, the new code sits alongside health promotion efforts such as the food pyramid and five+ a day to make us curb our excesses.

But many experts doubt that ordinary consumers know how to interpret the extra information. The knowledge that a 200ml glass of Fanta contains 27g of sugar may concern some parents but nutritionists believe it would be more useful to express the sugar content as a percentage of recommended daily intake.

Although more than half of us look for the fat and sugar content on the back of the cereal packet, price, convenience and cultural traditions continue to guide most purchases.

Nutritionist Winsome Parnell says only a minority of shoppers are sufficiently motivated to take advantage of the changes.

"There's a whole sector of the population who want to do the shopping in half an hour and haven't the time to read labels - and if they did they might not know what it means.

"It's all very well to label foods with carbohydrates and fibre and thiamin and iron but most people wouldn't know how much they need."

Until nutritional information is extended to fresh foods and takeaways, the capacity to change eating habits will be limited, says Parnell, senior lecturer at Otago University's department of human nutrition.

"If your breakfast, lunch and dinner come out of a labelled packet then you could look at the end of the day and add up your intake.

"But if you buy bread from the instore bakery, meat from the deli and a sandwich from the dairy, then it's not much use."

Green Party MP Sue Kedgley says while the new rules are welcome, they are still not enough. Kedgley and two staff members surveyed supermarket foods carrying the new labels this week and found not only "shockingly high" levels of sugar and fat in foods popular with children but that the labels were difficult to understand.

"We practically had to turn ourselves into accountants, huddled over calculators to interpret the labels.

"Parents want to be able to look at a label and know straight away how much sugar and fat is in each product, so they can build a balanced diet for their children.

"It would be helpful if the labels also showed the recommended daily intakes of sugar and fat for children and adults."

The December 20 deadline for manufacturers to comply with the code comes with little fanfare or effort to arouse public interest. This is partly because manufacturers have had two years to phase in expanded nutrition information panels, allergen-listing and storage information. They have a further year to phase out stocks packaged with old labels.

Nutritionist Dr John Birkbeck says an opportunity has been missed to educate the public on good nutrition. "It's only going to work if there's an education campaign to tell people how to interpret the labels."

Without accompanying education, he says, consumers may switch off from information overload.

"It's not much use if the man in the street doesn't know what it means."

Birkbeck believes food labelling can go much further by allowing manufacturers to promote ingredients with proven health benefits. For instance, he says there's enough scientific evidence that lycopene, present in tomatoes and other fruits, helps to prevent prostate cancer but producers can't say so explicitly.

"It's all very well to say, 'If you know this it will help prevent some kind of cancer', but if you can put it on the label then it's a lot more powerful message.

"I think we are being short-changed by not having that information in front of the public. There's a lot further they could go."

Dr Michael Dack, spokesman for regulatory body Food Standards Australia New Zealand, admits public understanding is the Achilles heel of the initiative.

Research in the two countries has found most people read labels before trying products for the first time but there is "misunderstanding, confusion and a lack of confidence" about how to interpret the panels.

Dack, who is based in Canberra, says more education is needed, not only at the consumer end but in schools so that young people understand the importance of diet.

"There are only two ways of keeping a healthy shape. One is by limiting your intake of energy. The other is by exercising."

He says officials are examining whether to allow manufacturers to make health claims about ingredients. Any claims will have to be scientifically proven.

In the meantime, the new labelling rules will allow consumers to compare brands and choose healthier products which offer value for money.

When extra nutritional information was provided in the United States, about 5 per cent of consumers improved their diets. Based on that evidence, it's calculated that between 360 and 460 lives a year will be saved in Australia.

"The information is there for people who can interpret and make use of it," says Dack.

The Food Safety Authority says a leaflet campaign early next year will help consumers to understand the new labelling. Food labelling and composition policy director Carole Inkster says the campaign will focus largely on health benefits and consumer safety information.

The authority has also reprinted a booklet explaining food additives, available on request from district health board public health offices.

Herald feature: Health