Food labelling

[TopGun]

Interesting article about food labelling on the BBC site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18767425

 

I prefer the traffic light system to GDAs but a big problem with both is that companies attempt to say 1/2 a can or 100g of this product has the following stats, knowing full well that those are small portions in the first place.

 

Any views?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

All of it is nonsense based on the assumption that most people are stupid. Tell me when my food goes off do not tell me what to eat.

[dune]

Interesting article about food labelling on the BBC site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18767425

 

I prefer the traffic light system to GDAs but a big problem with both is that companies attempt to say 1/2 a can or 100g of this product has the following stats, knowing full well that those are small portions in the first place.

 

Any views?

 

I find the suggested portion sizes perfectly adequate.

[Minty]

All of it is nonsense based on the assumption that most people are stupid. Tell me when my food goes off do not tell me what to eat.

A lot of people are stupid, I agree, and a lot of people don't care. But there are many who are not stupid and who do care and would appreciate a consistent, independently devised scheme.

 

They aren't telling you what to eat, just telling you what you would be eating if you ate that product.

[buctootim]

Interesting article about food labelling on the BBC site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18767425

 

I prefer the traffic light system to GDAs but a big problem with both is that companies attempt to say 1/2 a can or 100g of this product has the following stats, knowing full well that those are small portions in the first place.

 

Any views?

 

I was involved in this tangentially in 2003-2005. Think tank IPPR were pushing the supermakets, backed by DEFRA, to voluntarily introduce an industry wide food labelling and sourcing scheme. Sainsbury's, M&S, Waitrose and the Co-op enthisuastically backed it. Tescos and ASDA were obstructive but came to the meetings. Morrisons would have nothing to do with it. A lot of very good progress was made on a scheme which would have been universal, simple and consistent - a major major step forward from the currently deliberately confusing mish mash of labels.

 

In the end somebody, allegedly Tony Blair under pressure from the British Retail Consortium, told DEFRA to back away from the threat to legislate if a voluntary scheme wasnt forthcoming. As soon as they did that Tescos and ASDA walked away from negotiations and deliberately torpedoed the process.

 

As a country we need to do something. Diabetes rates are exploding as a result of obesity and excess sugar (especially High Fructose Corn Syrup) in processed food.

Edited 12 July, 2012 by buctootim

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

A lot of people are stupid, I agree, and a lot of people don't care. But there are many who are not stupid and who do care and would appreciate a consistent, independently devised scheme.

 

They aren't telling you what to eat, just telling you what you would be eating if you ate that product.

 

Thats fine by why should this be compulsory. If it gives retailers a competitive advantage then that is great for them, they can introduce the labelling and people like yourself can shop there and buy products with the appropriate labeling. I will be then able to shop somewhere else where because there is less labelling the products are cheaper and because there is less labelling there is less packaging and I can then lower my carbon foot print. The trouble is, as Buctotim's post highlights, this is about pointless but expensive Think tanks creating red tape and regulation to handicap business and to justify there jobs.

[buctootim]

this is about pointless but expensive Think tanks creating red tape and regulation to handicap business and to justify there jobs.

 

Of course it is. All a nasty left wing beaureacratic conspiracy. Nothing to do with huge healthcare costs and early deaths associated with diet induced disease.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/nhs-diabetes-costs-cases-rising.aspx

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/08August/Pages/half-of-uk-predicted-to-be-obese-by-2030.aspx

Edited 12 July, 2012 by buctootim

[JPTCount]

its all a con, last time I looked at the side of a 500ml coke bottle it had calories etc. from a 250 ml serving.

 

whats wrong is that ur costs less to buy a ready meal than it does to buy all the ingredients and cook from scratch, I want a fat tax that subsidies fresh food and British farmers.

[dune]

its all a con, last time I looked at the side of a 500ml coke bottle it had calories etc. from a 250 ml serving.

 

whats wrong is that ur costs less to buy a ready meal than it does to buy all the ingredients and cook from scratch, I want a fat tax that subsidies fresh food and British farmers.

 

Why not tax fat people on their body mass?

[buctootim]

Why not tax fat people on their body mass?

 

Good plan. Obesity is Britains leading growth industry. We could pay off the national debt.

[JPTCount]

Why not tax fat people on their body mass?

 

coz apparently that's prejudice, plus what if u decided to start eating healthy again dune? do u still get taxed until ur BMI is down to average even though u've already turned the corner?

 

there are also lots of people who's weight is down to something genetic, or the meds they are on.

[dune]

there are also lots of people who's weight is down to something genetic, or the meds they are on.

 

Don't forget "big bones".

[CB Saint]

If the cost of healthcare for the obese is less than the additional costs of pension and elderly care if they lead a healthy lifestyle, then let them crack on. Remove the labelling, increase the salt content, sugar and transfats.

[JPTCount]

Don't forget "big bones".

 

alot of people hide behind this, but other people do have glandular problems, and I know people who are on meds for all sorts that effect thier body weight. if u taxed unhealthy food, the "big boned" ppl would suffer most.

 

and I admire how reading can be so selective.

[JPTCount]

smokers pay a **** load of tax for thier habit, so why shouldn't unhealthy eaters have the same thrust upon them?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Of course it is. All a nasty left wing beaureacratic conspiracy. Nothing to do with huge healthcare costs and early deaths associated with diet induced disease.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/nhs-diabetes-costs-cases-rising.aspx

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/08August/Pages/half-of-uk-predicted-to-be-obese-by-2030.aspx

 

I am sorry Buctootim but call me naive or not but I believe that 99.9% people who are obese have managed to make the connection with their diet and their weight. We do not need to be patronised by expensive think tanks puuting traffic lights on our food.

[Minty]

Thats fine by why should this be compulsory. If it gives retailers a competitive advantage then that is great for them, they can introduce the labelling and people like yourself can shop there and buy products with the appropriate labeling. I will be then able to shop somewhere else where because there is less labelling the products are cheaper and because there is less labelling there is less packaging and I can then lower my carbon foot print. The trouble is, as Buctotim's post highlights, this is about pointless but expensive Think tanks creating red tape and regulation to handicap business and to justify there jobs.

 

I think you're being a bit silly there... I don't actually think it should be compulsory either... in actual fact, those companies who are trying to avoid this kind of thing are, very generally speaking, those who have something to hide, so it makes it easier to make my own mind up.

 

As for more packaging, erm, no... this is simply something which would need to be incorporated into the existing design or the existing packaging. Nothing extra.

 

There are actually a lot of genuinely good reasons for better informing people of what they are eating... it all comes back to your original point. People are stupid. Whether they take note or not is up to them, but there are good reasons for including more information on food packaging IMO, and I don't see it as a handicap at all, and neither do a lot of the producers I deal with in my job. They want to show off their products and how good they are.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I think you're being a bit silly there... I don't actually think it should be compulsory either... in actual fact, those companies who are trying to avoid this kind of thing are, very generally speaking, those who have something to hide, so it makes it easier to make my own mind up.

 

As for more packaging, erm, no... this is simply something which would need to be incorporated into the existing design or the existing packaging. Nothing extra.

 

There are actually a lot of genuinely good reasons for better informing people of what they are eating... it all comes back to your original point. People are stupid. Whether they take note or not is up to them, but there are good reasons for including more information on food packaging IMO, and I don't see it as a handicap at all, and neither do a lot of the producers I deal with in my job. They want to show off their products and how good they are.

 

I would contest that I am being silly here. I don't think it is that companies have something to hide it is more the fact that smaller producers and suppliers do not have the resources to meet all of these new requirements. Why should a small cheesemaker in Devon have to spend money packaging his cheddar with a sticker that tells people not to eat it?

 

I am sorry but more labelling inevitably means more packaging. I cannot see why 6 tomatoes or three leeks or five slices of ham etc etc are packaged in plastic containers. It is lunacy and justy creates more waste.

 

I do not think people are stupid. Lazy yes.

[Minty]

I would contest that I am being silly here. I don't think it is that companies have something to hide it is more the fact that smaller producers and suppliers do not have the resources to meet all of these new requirements. Why should a small cheesemaker in Devon have to spend money packaging his cheddar with a sticker that tells people not to eat it?

As I said, I actually agree that it shouldn't be compulsory. However, I do think that if producers do label their food, it should be done using a independently agreed and consistently applied standard. When I suggested you were being silly, I meant your assertion that labelling automatically = more cost and more packaging, which is simply not true. I know this because I deal with small, local producers on a regular basis.

 

I am sorry but more labelling inevitably means more packaging. I cannot see why 6 tomatoes or three leeks or five slices of ham etc etc are packaged in plastic containers. It is lunacy and justy creates more waste.

I completely agree about the excesses of packaging, but IMO, adding additional information need not mean MORE packaging if done intelligently. It can be added to existing packaging. If you look at most labelling that is used in proprietary schemes, it is simply added in to the design.

 

I do not think people are stupid. Lazy yes.

Personal experience would suggest there are lazy people, stupid people, people that don't care, and a mixture of two or even all three!