food labelling : what can the marketeers get away with?

Another non-organic article folks, though one surely of interest to organic types. Below is the full text of an article I had in the Examiner recently on food labelling.

Food labels and food labelling: the experts agree that it�s a minefield. Take E numbers. Legislation requires that they are listed on food labels.

According to the organisation that represents nutritionists and dieticians in Ireland, INDI, �contrary to popular belief, E numbers are additives that have passed EU safety tests. You should be more concerned if you see numbers without an E before them�.

However, a recent study has muddied the waters somewhat. Up until now, in the vast majority of cases, E numbers were tested individually, found to be safe and then labelled as such. But when a range of colouring additives and a particular common preservative were tested together for their combined effect, the results have proved to be worrying.

A recent University of Southampton study examined the effect of benzoate preservatives and the following artificial food colours: Tartrazine (E102) Ponceau 4R (E124) Sunset Yellow (E110) Carmoisine (E122) Quinoline Yellow (E104) Allura Red (E129).

According to professor of Psychology Jim Stevenson, who led the research; �We have now shown that for a large group of children in the general population, consumption of certain mixtures of artificial food colours and benzoate preservative can influence their hyperactive behaviour�.

In light of this research, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) have come out and stated that children who display symptoms of hyperactivity or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) should limit their consumption of these additives.

Whether all children or just those with these particular symptoms should avoid these additives is proving to be controversial. RedBranch is a not-for-profit organisation that promotes healthy lifestyle choices in Irish children and young people, primarily through schools. They suggest that the FSAI position doesn�t go far enough:

�The study found adverse effects in the general population, not just in children with ADHD, and this is not the first scientific study questioning the wisdom of adding cocktails of chemicals to children's food. We advise all parents to avoid these unnecessary additives�.

So even if it�s on the label, it may present a risk. So how exactly are food labels and labelling policed?

According to the authorities, labelling should not be false or misleading. The FSAI point to 11 key areas, some compulsory, some dependant upon other factors: Name of product, list of ingredients, quantity of certain ingredients, net quantity, date of minimum durability, special storage conditions, name and address, origin, instructions for use, alcoholic beverages and nutrition labelling.

Many of these areas are common sense. For example, the list of ingredients is in descending order of weight. However, there are provisos. Take origin. Origin only has to be labelled if it is considered that its absence might mislead the consumer. I asked Dr. Jeff Moon of the Consumer Protection Unit in the FSAI about this. Specifically, I asked Jeff about the Irish chicken:

�In simple terms, if you say something comes from somewhere it has to be from there. But where there is a lot of processing going on here then you would be able to say it�s a product of Ireland. Take for example Chicken Kiev. Chicken can be imported into here, and processed. A sauce can be put into it, breadcrumbs put onto it, it can be cooked and presented in a way that�s ready to eat; that can then be considered an Irish product. If there is an indication that the actual chicken was Irish, and it wasn�t, that would be misleading. Basically it�s to do with how much processing and transformation the product goes through�.

INDI�s factsheet, while claiming that food labelling shouldn�t be misleading, points out just how difficult to understand labels can be. They point out that sodium is often labelled rather than salt. To calculate the accurate salt level, the sodium figure needs to be multiplied by 2.5. �Salt should be salt� according to Margot Brennan of INDI: �if you are in a shopping centre, and suddenly you come across sodium, and you are trying to multiply it by two and a half, it�s hugely confusing for people�.

INDI�s factsheet also states that if a product is making an endorsed health claim, there are criteria. For example, a product must have less than 5% fat to be labelled low fat: so �90% fat-free� means 10% fat and thus high fat.

Marketers really do test the limits: According to Dave Burns from RedBranch: �If you look at breakfast cereals, they often advertise themselves as high in calcium. The calcium often comes from chalk�The manufacturer is then able to make a claim, by adding a very cheap ingredient to a highly processed food�.

But wait, there�s more: �some fruit drinks have only 10% fruit, but have fruit in the name, and pictures of fruit all over the packet. You�d have to drink 50 200ml bottles for one litre of actual fruit juice�.

As so often is the case, there is legislation on the way to try to catch up with these sorts of claims. But when, as Margot Brennan suggests, �the marketers will push it as far as they can� these very marketers seem to be leading the dynamic.

note: for more, see the new FSAI publication : The labelling of Food in Ireland 2007

Spot the hidden sugar:

Sports drinks and energy drinks are extremely well marketed. Sugar in the form of glucose and water are often the main ingredients. Glucose is one way sugar hides. Here are some others, all of which will raise your blood sugar levels:

Sucrose, fructose, glucose syrup, golden syrup, maple syrup, treacle, fruit juices, invert sugar, honey, dextrose, maltose.