• traffic light colours (red, amber and green),
• text (high, medium or low)
• and percentage Guideline Daily Amounts (% GDAs).

The Agency says it does not support front-of-pack labels using only % GDAs.  Instead, % GDAs should be combined with either traffic light colours or text, and should ideally have all three elements.

For manufacturers, it represented a victory in a vigorous behind-the-scenes campaign to avoid the placing of warning colours on junk food which they feared, comments the Independent.

The Daily Mail says that Consumer groups and health campaigners are accusing the Agency of backing down to the might of food giants.

Read more: The Independent, 11 Mar 2010

Read more: Media Release, Food Standards Agency, 10 Mar 2010

Read more:Daily Mail, 11 Mar 2010

Read the latest issue: (12 March 2010)

Read earlier issues of Obesity News

A panel overseeing a review of food labels in Australia and New Zealand is about to start public consultations.  It has released a consultation paper and there will be two public meetings in New Zealand:  Wellington on 25 March and Christchurch on 26 March.  The panel will report back to the Food Regulation Ministerial Council later this year.  New Zealand is represented on the Council.

Register to attend one of the meetings

Read the Food Labelling Review Issues Consultation Paper

The closing date for written submissions is 14 May 2010.

FOE feels strongly that the current system of food labelling is confusing and misleading.  We  support a traffic-light food labelling system.  This would make it easy for busy shoppers to distinguish more healthy from less healthy food.

The review process provides the best opportunities New Zealanders are likely to have for some time to influence developments in food labelling.

The consultation paper poses a series of questions relevant to the review.  First, and crucial, is

“To what extent should the food regulatory system be used to meet broader public health objectives?”

Public health is taken to include health promotion - activities designed to inhibit chronic disease by promoting healthy eating and physical activity.

An evidence-based approach is promised.  So it is up to people wanting to promote public health through food labelling to draw the relevant evidence to the attention of the panel.

Read more about FOE’s position on traffic light food labelling .

Read more about the consultation: Ausfoodnews, 26 Feb 2010

FOE’s Dr Robyn Toomath says that:

“It would be great to see McDonald’s sales data from 3 or 6 months down the track. If they show a drop (in absolute terms) of fries, burgers and soft drinks we will know that people are opting for healthier food over the unhealthy items. What we anticipate however is that McDonald’s may well expand its customer base resulting in a further deterioration in the nutritional status of New Zealanders as they consume more of the unhealthy items.”

She told the NZ Herald that the move would be okay if it convinced existing McDonald’s customers to pick a less-fatty food option.  But it was more likely the promotion would simply attract new customers - and thus normalise the regular eating of McDonald’s.

Professor Boyd Swinburn, from the Australian Society for the Study of Obesity at Deakin University in Melbourne, told the Sydney Morning Herald that the move was a marketing ploy.

“Make no mistake, this is about selling more burgers and fries,” he said.

Australian nutritionist Rosemary Stanton agreed, telling the paper that sales of burgers and chips soared when McDonald’s Australia ushered in its Deli Choices rolls in 2004.

“It got new people through the doors, but once they were in they bought the burgers.”

Digital Journal has a round up of comments from health and food groups

Read more: NZ Herald, 3 Mar 2010

Read more: Sydney Morning Herald, 3 Mar 2010

Read more:  Stuff, 3 Mar 2010

Read more: TV3 news, 3 Mar 2010

The Supermarket Health Options Project (SHOP) study tracked the food purchases of over 1000 shoppers at eight Pak’ N Save supermarkets in the lower North Island. Half of the shoppers received price discounts of 12.5 percent on healthier foods for six months, and half received intensive, personalised nutrition education over the same time period, including tailored shopping lists, recipes and advice.

Price discounts resulted in an 11 percent increase in the amount of healthier food purchased, with two thirds of the increase attributed to fruit and vegetables. In contrast, no change in the purchase of healthier food was found for shoppers receiving nutrition education alone.

Writing in the New Zealand Herald, Martin Johnson noted that the study provides support for the Māori Party push to exempt healthy foods from GST.

Read the article : American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar 2010 (PDF)

Read more: Media release, Auckland University/Voxy, 3 Mar 2010

Read more: NZ Herald, 4 Mar 2010

Read the latest issue: (22 February 2010)

Read earlier issues of Obesity News

The proceeds from the tax will be spent on health programmes.

Read more: TV3 news,  18 Feb 2010

Read the latest issue (4 Feb 2010)

Read earlier issues of Obesity News

The latest New Zealand Listener has a feature article focusing on some contentious views about obesity held by Professor Rod Jackson from the University of Auckland’s School of Population Health.  Most of what he says is sensible.  Some is not.

Jackson starts by calling for a 10-year moratorium on use of the terms “overweight” and “obesity”. He prefers talking about “healthy weight”.

First, the sensible. According to Jackson:

While we should stop talking about overweight and obesity, we should proceed with legislation and regulations to help people make better food choices. We need to take the blame away from the individual - which appears to be doing more harm than good as we just get fatter - and put the blame where it should be, on the environment. So, regulations about food in schools and hospitals, banning junk food advertising on television - not just to kids - should go ahead.

FOE doesn’t care whether such regulations are implemented under the banner of fighting obesity, promoting healthy weight, fostering good health or improving people’s diets.  We just want to see them happen.

But then there’s the weird.  Jackson asserts that the message to eat less and exercise more is not working, “so let’s do something else for 10 years”.  The “something else” appears to be a focus on reducing smoking.

As far as health risks go, Jackson says that being overweight comes below smoking, raised blood pressure and raised blood cholesterol.  So, he argues, “we would be better to target smokers than those deemed overweight”.  But it’s not an either-or.  Jackson’s position is akin to saying that cancer kills more people than AIDS, so let’s not bother with trying to prevent the latter.

As well, it’s not clear that raised blood pressure and blood cholesterol are greater threats to health than unhealthy weight, and for two reasons.  First, unhealthy weight itself contributes to raised blood pressure and cholesterol, so Jackson is not comparing apples with apples.

Second, raised blood pressure and cholesterol are silent killers and disablers - they typically only affect quality of life when they contribute to a heart attack or stroke.  Unhealthy weight, however, can affect people throughout their lives in a long list of physical and psychosocial ways, including reduced mobility and increased joint pain. Many people would choose a slightly shorter but higher-quality life to a longer life of lesser quality.

Jackson’s position makes sense if he means that since messages about eating less and exercising more haven’t worked, it’s time to move on to regulating the food environment. This is the real issue.

Read more:  New Zealand Listener, 23-29 January 2010, 21-23.

Read the latest issue (17 Jan 2010)

Read earlier issues of Obesity News