National food agencies and multinationals are struggling to set up a uniform, transparent food labelling system aimed at promoting healthy living. In Europe, Sweden has its voluntary Keyhole Labelling Scheme and the UK has two rival systems: one Food Standards Agency backed and one backed by the multinationals. Critics, such as food industry expert Professor Marion Nestle, cast serious doubts on the credibility of the health symbols that multinationals put on their products and favour authorised systems.

While obesity is taking on pandemic proportions, national food agencies and multinationals are in a tug of war over the set-up of a transparent food health labelling system. Governments favour a uniform health labelling system based on scientific criteria that enables consumers to discern food for daily needs and junk foods. The food industry is strongly opposed to a cross-category approach. Multinationals fear a drop in sales, especially in indulgence categories.
Maybe one day the world will have an international front-of-pack nutrition labelling system authorised by an independent arbiter like the World Health Organisation. Today public health authorities are thinking about a scheme for the European Union. This has shown to be a laborious process. Already in 2001, the European Commission launched a discussion paper on nutrition claims and functional claims. Member States were invited to provide input for the establishment of a broad platform for health messages, encompassing foodstuffs, eating habits and meals and physical exercise. Now, Europe has an authorisation system for claims like ‘lowers your cholesterol’ on (functional) food products. However, there is still no general food health labelling system for all of Europe. In the meantime, several countries have created their own food health labelling system. At the moment Sweden and the UK are taking the lead in Europe.

The Swedish key
In 1989, the Swedish National Food Administration (NFA) implemented the voluntary Keyhole Labelling Scheme, which is an indicator for the healthiest foods within a given food category. Products that carry the green keyhole-shaped symbol are lower in fat, saturated and trans fatty acids, sugars and sodium and contain more fibre. For consumers the green keyhole acts as a positive choice.
Current Keyhole categories are dairy, margarine and spreads, meat, fish, mixed and ready prepared products, fruit and berries, vegetables, potatoes and cereals. Not included are junk foods, because of their high energy density and high fat and sugar content. According to the FSA the introduction of the Keyhole was an incitement for the development of healthier products and the continuous reformulation of existing ones. For example, at the introduction in 1989 there were very few low-fat cheeses, today one out of eight Swedish cheesed have less than 17 per cent fat.
Denmark and Norway are now considering the implementation of a comparable labelling scheme. In France, food authorities are also working on this idea. In the Netherlands, an energy logo was introduced last year by the Federation of Food Industry. This shows the amount of calories in a product per portion, piece or packaging unit. Also in 2006, several multinationals such as Campina and Unilever developed a positive health choice label for some of their product ranges.

Examples of company health labels or claims 1. Better-for-you choices: Sensible Solution (Kraft) Nestlé, Smart Spot (Pepsico’s health symbol), ‘With Whole Grain’-logo (General Mills) 2. Heart Healthy Chocolate: Articoa (Barry Callebaut), CocoaVia (Dove/Mars), Natural source of flavonal antioxidants logo (Hershey’s Extra Dark Chocolate), American Heart Association’s heart-check mark (General Mill’s Chocolate Lucky Charms) 3. Weight loss: Nestea Enviga calorie burning green tea (Nestlé/Coca Cola) 4. Consumption advice: 3-A-Day Milk Cheese Yoghurt (National Dairy Council)

 

Traffic light
In the United Kingdom the Food Standards Agency has designed a signposting scheme that informs consumers about the calorie, (saturate) fat, salt and sugar content per 100 gram product. This so-called multiple nutrient traffic light labelling system attributes high, medium or low ratings to products with corresponding red, amber and green codes. Unlike the Swedish Keyhole, this food health labelling system goes across categories. Moreover it is not a positive choice as products may show red, amber and green codes. The traffic light system is supported by Sainsbury’s, ASDA, Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and the Cooperative Group. Since the introduction in 2005, the system has been applied to more and more packages and categories. Although label design may differ per retailer, the symbols mean exactly the same thing everywhere. At Sainsbury's, the introduction of the colour codes had a dramatic effect on ready meals sales. Be Good to Yourself spinach and ricotta cannelloni profited from their low fat content and showed a sharp rise, while meals high in fat such as chicken Madras fell as much as 40 per cent. In January, Waitrose announced to extend the signposting system across more categories by the end of March 2007. The new categories to be included are burgers, pies, sausages and breaded poultry and fish. These are exactly the food groups that the FSA has recommended for colour coding because many consumers have difficulties interpreting the nutritional value of complex processed foods.

Rival labelling
UK market leader Tesco and food retailers Morrisons and Somerfield do not back the FSA-system. They have shared ranks with a group of 21 leading manufacturers that oppose the FSA-scheme in principle. Among these are Coca-Cola, Danone, Nestlé, Kellogg, Pepsico, Unilever and Kraft. The companies refuse to apply the FSA’s colour codes because most of their confectionery, cereals and ready-meal solutions would end up with red marks. And products showing red traffic lights will not sell, is what brand leaders say. Instead, multinationals have launched alternative labels that show consumers how much of their Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) is in a portion of food. Even high percentages will never have the deterring effect of red codes, the GDA-camp believes. Last January, a £4 million advertising campaign was aired to promote the GDA-labelling system. This will run for 18 months. However, multinational McCain Foods, also a member of the Food and Drink Federation, broke ranks last year when the company announced to be adopting the Government's traffic light scheme – a remarkable step for a major producer. Thus far only a few British companies have openly supported the colour codes such as soup, sauce and risotto producer New Covent Garden Co and poultry processor Moy Park.

GDA labels too complicated
Since January, the UK has seen a label war. The Food Standards Agency has started a marketing campaign to promote the traffic light system. This will run parallel with rival advertisements of the GDA supporters. Members of the GDA group say consumers find the percentages of GDAs easier to understand than traffic lights. According to Tesco, GDA labels stimulate sales of healthy products and points at weekly sales of ready meals eight weeks before and after labelling started. Low-fat varieties outsold higher fat varieties by seven per cent and lower-salt meals outsold higher salt versions by ten per cent. For this reason, Tesco extended GDA labelling to every Tesco-owned food item at the beginning of 2007. Tesco says GDA labels enable consumers to make healthier choices but public health officials, consumer groups and the Food Safety Authority disagree. Research by FSA indicates that 62 per cent of people misunderstand GDA labels and 42 per cent find them too complicated. Interpretation of the percentages would take at least three seconds longer per item than colour codes.

Healthy symbols
Two rivalling food health labelling systems in the UK is not in the consumer’s interest. What is needed in western countries is a uniform, international vision for nutrition labelling backed by all parties involved. By contrast, consumers in Europe and Northern America are now confronted with voluntary systems by food authorities and a growing list of company scheme initiatives. Critics argue that this plethora of company health labels is more confusing than helpful to consumers. Another point of criticism is the absence of independent authorities to evaluate their criteria. Now claims remain unchecked and can easily mislead consumers. Marion Nestle, professor at the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, is an expert on the working of the food industry and one of those critics. She casts serious doubts on the credibility of healthy symbols that multinationals put on their products. “These label ‘better-for-you’ options are defined by the companies themselves. Obviously, they set the criteria so that as many products as possible will qualify. In the US, we have Kraft Lunchables. Some qualify for self-endorsement as a Sensible Solution and some do not. It is extremely difficult to tell them apart, however. Although the Sensible Solution products may have less sodium, saturated fat, and sugars than the conventional products, they still are very high in those undesirable nutrients.”

Food cosmetics
The strategy is simple, says Nestle. Health sells products. “If you can get consumers to think that a Sensible Solution or Smart Spot (Pepsico, VH) is healthier, you have a good chance that they will believe it. As far as I can tell, much of what companies are doing to ‘improve’ their junk foods is cosmetic and not really significant nutritionally.”
Nestle therefore favours authorised systems, like the FSA-scheme, although people should be aware of the shortcomings. “In theory, the traffic light system is a great idea for helping consumers to distinguish between everyday foods and those for once in a (long) while. In practice, the system is as yet untested. So we don’t yet know whether it will encourage greater consumption of ‘green light’ foods. The real problem is in the definition of criteria for assigning foods to the three categories. If the criteria set standards for all nutrients of concern, few products will qualify for the green light. Also, green light-labelled foods are not necessarily health foods - they still have calories! Overall, the system defines ‘better-for-you’ processed foods, when people would really be better off eating fewer processed foods altogether.”