W
In an attempt to protect its citizens, the United Kingdom is reviewing
proposals to implement its own color-coded alert system evocative of
the one in place in the United States.
This may prompt cynicism in Americans who are skeptical about the
effectiveness of our own color-coded security alert system. They may,
however, be comforted by the knowledge that the UK's system would
create warnings that are targeted to much more specific areas than our
system. You see, the UK's proposed alert system has nothing to do
with international terrorists. Rather it will relate to food,
providing a color-coded indicator specifically calculated for each item
in grocery stores. Additionally, it would differ in another
fundamental way -- by indicating the healthfulness of foods, as opposed
to levels of security threats.
The UK's Food Standards Agency is currently reviewing five food
labeling proposals with the goal of picking a system that will help
people make better-informed and healthier food choices. The two
currently favored proposals are a "simple traffic light" system (with
red, amber, and green circles, which supposedly respectively indicate:
eat sparingly, eat in moderation, and eat plenty) and a "multiple
traffic light system" (indicating low, medium, or high for levels of
fat, salt, sugar, and saturates). Other proposals include an
"extended traffic light" system containing a range of five colors as
opposed to three (I am trying to imagine the confusion that would ensue
if such a system replaced all current traffic lights) and a logo to be
placed on specific foods deemed to be "healthy."
The first currently favored proposal, the "simple traffic light" system
with one color indicator for each particular food, will be too vague to
help consumers make informed nutritional decisions and create balanced
diets. To the system's credit, it does account for a variety of
nutritional factors, including calories, saturated fat, sugar, sodium,
calcium, iron, and percent fruit and vegetable content. However, the
system does not account for the presence of other important nutrients
in the diet (for example, both fruit and diet soda would be labeled
with the same green light "eat plenty" indicator). The system
provides only one indicator of a given food's status as "healthful,"
thereby obscuring which factors account for the product's positive or
negative rating.
The other favored proposal, a "multiple traffic light" system,
indicates high (red), medium (amber), or low (green) for levels of four
food components: fat, salt, sugar, and saturates. This system has a
considerable advantage over the "simple traffic light" system in that
indicators are shown separately and are based directly on levels of a
substance as opposed to a complex formula assigning uniform values to
the importance of nutrients (resulting in a system in which some amount
of a "positive," such as calcium, must be present in order to
counteract a "negative," such as calorie density, in a calculation of
healthfulness). However, while it does attract attention to a wider
range of nutritional aspects of food items, again, it may lead to
oversimplified food choices based on only four factors. These four
factors do not even include calories, the most important dietary factor
in weight control. Furthermore, the same information is already
available on the current, albeit slightly less visible, label on each
product.
It may be risky to squeeze complex information -- whether about
nutrition or terrorism -- into a system normally used to convey only
go/caution/stop. If the UK does implement a new food labeling system,
it should be supplemented with education clearly indicating the meaning
of such labels and not simply reduce food's qualities to traffic light
colors. The Food Standards Agency is currently welcoming input on the
labeling system. (See
http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations/ukwideconsults/nutrientprofiling)
---------
NOTE: A version of this post which includes hyperlinks can be found at
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.488/news_detail.asp
--------
Rivka Weiser
www.acsh.org
www.HealthFactsAndFears.com
proposals to implement its own color-coded alert system evocative of
the one in place in the United States.
This may prompt cynicism in Americans who are skeptical about the
effectiveness of our own color-coded security alert system. They may,
however, be comforted by the knowledge that the UK's system would
create warnings that are targeted to much more specific areas than our
system. You see, the UK's proposed alert system has nothing to do
with international terrorists. Rather it will relate to food,
providing a color-coded indicator specifically calculated for each item
in grocery stores. Additionally, it would differ in another
fundamental way -- by indicating the healthfulness of foods, as opposed
to levels of security threats.
The UK's Food Standards Agency is currently reviewing five food
labeling proposals with the goal of picking a system that will help
people make better-informed and healthier food choices. The two
currently favored proposals are a "simple traffic light" system (with
red, amber, and green circles, which supposedly respectively indicate:
eat sparingly, eat in moderation, and eat plenty) and a "multiple
traffic light system" (indicating low, medium, or high for levels of
fat, salt, sugar, and saturates). Other proposals include an
"extended traffic light" system containing a range of five colors as
opposed to three (I am trying to imagine the confusion that would ensue
if such a system replaced all current traffic lights) and a logo to be
placed on specific foods deemed to be "healthy."
The first currently favored proposal, the "simple traffic light" system
with one color indicator for each particular food, will be too vague to
help consumers make informed nutritional decisions and create balanced
diets. To the system's credit, it does account for a variety of
nutritional factors, including calories, saturated fat, sugar, sodium,
calcium, iron, and percent fruit and vegetable content. However, the
system does not account for the presence of other important nutrients
in the diet (for example, both fruit and diet soda would be labeled
with the same green light "eat plenty" indicator). The system
provides only one indicator of a given food's status as "healthful,"
thereby obscuring which factors account for the product's positive or
negative rating.
The other favored proposal, a "multiple traffic light" system,
indicates high (red), medium (amber), or low (green) for levels of four
food components: fat, salt, sugar, and saturates. This system has a
considerable advantage over the "simple traffic light" system in that
indicators are shown separately and are based directly on levels of a
substance as opposed to a complex formula assigning uniform values to
the importance of nutrients (resulting in a system in which some amount
of a "positive," such as calcium, must be present in order to
counteract a "negative," such as calorie density, in a calculation of
healthfulness). However, while it does attract attention to a wider
range of nutritional aspects of food items, again, it may lead to
oversimplified food choices based on only four factors. These four
factors do not even include calories, the most important dietary factor
in weight control. Furthermore, the same information is already
available on the current, albeit slightly less visible, label on each
product.
It may be risky to squeeze complex information -- whether about
nutrition or terrorism -- into a system normally used to convey only
go/caution/stop. If the UK does implement a new food labeling system,
it should be supplemented with education clearly indicating the meaning
of such labels and not simply reduce food's qualities to traffic light
colors. The Food Standards Agency is currently welcoming input on the
labeling system. (See
http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations/ukwideconsults/nutrientprofiling)
---------
NOTE: A version of this post which includes hyperlinks can be found at
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.488/news_detail.asp
--------
Rivka Weiser
www.acsh.org
www.HealthFactsAndFears.com