Home

Many Australian consumers are aware of the risk of high blood pressure due to excess salt intake, but a new study indicates they may still have trouble interpreting labelling info that lists sodium rather than salt.

Excess salt intake (sodium chloride) has been consistently linked to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure and stroke.

The World Health Organization recommends adults consume no more than 5g of salt per day. Australia’s own National Heart Foundation recommends that individuals reduce their sodium intake to less than 6g per day.

A 1987 to 1995 study conducted by Dr. Nancy Cook (BMJ, 2007; 334: 885), looked at 744 patients who had received 18-48 months of comprehensive education and counselling on reducing their sodium intake.

Dr Cook’s subsequent post-research 10 year evaluation study concluded that sodium reduction, previously shown to lower blood pressure, may also reduce long-term risk of cardiovascular events.

Research also shows that shoppers regularly read food labels. However, according to Food Standards Australia/New Zealand, they still consistently request more information about exactly what those food labels mean.

In November 2011 a “Traffic Light” labelling system, supported by the Australian Medical Association, was presented for approval.

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon said there was “currently not enough evidence to demonstrate that any form of front-of-pack labelling, including traffic light labelling, would provide Australians with the nutritional information they need to make informed choices”.

Food labels are a wealth of information, so start looking at them on a regular basis to understand how much salt (sodium chloride), MSG, baking soda, baking powder (and more) goes into your food!

The more practice you get reading food labels, the better you’ll become at using them as a tool to plan a healthy, balanced diet.

Other sodium compounds include:
• Disodium phosphate: Found in some quick-cooking cereals and processed cheeses.
• Sodium alginate: Used in many chocolate milks and ice creams to make a smooth mixture.
• Sodium benzoate: Used as a preservative in many condiments such as relishes, sauces and salad dressings.
• Sodium hydroxide: Used in food processing to soften and loosen skins of ripe olives and certain fruits and vegetables.
• Sodium nitrite: Used in cured meats and sausages.
• Sodium propionate: Used in pasteurized cheese and in some breads and cakes to inhibit growth of molds.
• Sodium sulfite: Used to bleach certain fruits such as maraschino cherries and glazed or crystallized fruits that are to be artificially colored; also used as a preservative in some dried fruits such as prunes.

Achieving a low salt intake with the present food supply is difficult as 80% of our intake comes from salt added to food during processing.

Many of the numerous processed/convenience foods now available contain very high salt levels that consumers can’t avoid, and it’s clear that large changes are needed – reducing the levels of salt in our food supply should be the first line of defense in the fight against cardiovascular disease.

What does ‘natural’ really mean on food packaging?

With thousands of food and health products now on the market, it’s become a challenge for consumers to identify what is “right” and “good for their health” from what might prove to be a big disaster!

‘Natural,’ as the name suggests, is any product made from natural ingredients directly obtained from plants, minerals, and/or animal derived ingredients rather than synthetic compounds or petrochemicals.

It means free of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and other toxic chemicals. Natural ingredients, organic or otherwise, should ensure that petrochemical and synthetic compounds aren’t accumulating in your body and the environment.

However, in Australia this isn’t always the case. Due to the lack of food labeling standards, it’s often difficult to determine if a product is truly natural. The same standards apply to the word fresh.

Foods Standards Australia and New Zealand states that the listing of product ingredients is required on the container or on the product itself, if not packed in a container. The mandatory information standard requires display of information to allow consumers to be informed.

Yet, there are no regulations in place for nutritional content health claims and the claim to treat or prevent serious health conditions.

The current Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (FSANZ) has been under review. Council members say these revisions will ensure claims are scientifically substantiated and not misleading.

It is proposed that foods carrying general and high level health claims will also need to meet certain eligibility criteria.

In 2008 the Ministerial Council asked FSANZ to review parts of the draft standard and also to take into account the outcomes of an independent food labeling review. A food labeling review report was released in January 2011.

Work is continuing on FSANZ’s review of the draft standard. However, the Ministerial Council has extended the completion date for the review and  has yet to advise FSANZ of the new timeline.

Until this process is complete, product labeling can continue to include the word ‘natural’ for marketing purposes, even if that claim is misleading.

So, in the meantime, when you see the term ‘natural’ used to describe food, remain apprehensive about what you’re really purchasing.

Remember, many substances may be derived from natural products but that doesn’t necessarily make them healthy.

We’re not suggesting you stop purchasing products labeled ‘natural,’ just to be an informed consumer. When it comes to your health, it really pays to do some research so you know exactly what the individual contents of a product are, their source and their intended use.

There’s been quite a bit of talk recently about changing the way food products are labelled in an attempt to educate and encourage people to make healthier food choices.

Governments around the world are considering (and in some cases have already implemented) systems that provide ‘traffic light’ nutrition labels on food.

The general idea is that every food product you buy would have a label on the front advising you of the fat, sugar and sodium levels in terms of good (green), okay (amber), and too high (red).

It sounds like a good idea. The question is, will it work?

Traffic Light Labels
The primary idea behind traffic light labelling is to make it easier for the general public to choose healthier food options without the need for a lot of education.

By adding colour-coded labels to food, people will instantly know whether or not their food falls into a good, okay or not good category.

It also allows Governments and health promotion agencies to focus their attention on promoting the system rather than the larger job of providing nutrition education.

The idea of colour-coded food labels is quite good. Foods are assessed on the levels of fat, salt and sugar. Levels of each determine the colour-code of each category.

For example, a food that receives the green light in each category can be eaten regularly. A product that gets the red light should be avoided or, at the very least, eaten only on occasion. Amber foods can be consumed in moderation as they are neither high nor low.

Traffic Light Criteria
The criterion for categorising food is based on the amounts of fat, sugar and salt per 100gm. The 100gm measurement has been used for many years now to help people compare food products. Most of us have used this system at some time have compared two or three products to find the better option based on the nutritional content.

In essence, traffic light labels take this idea one step further. Colour-coding  information on the front of the packet will make it so much easier to choose a healthier product.

The following table shows how the content of foods will be categorised:

Green Amber Red
Total fat per 100gm <3 gm 3.1-19.9gm >20gm
Saturated fat per 100gm < 5gm 5.1-14.9gm >15gm
Sugar per 100gm <5gm 5.1 -14.9gm >15gm
Sodium (salt) per 100gm 120mg 121-599mg >600mg

Iphone Application
The Cancer Council of Victoria have actually released an application for the iPhone that compensates for the lack of movement by the government. Just search the iTunes app store under “Traffic Light Labelling.”

The Pros and Cons
As with many things, the traffic light system has both good and bad points.

While the system will help easier identification of good and not so good nutritional foods, the system doesn’t differentiate between healthy and unhealthy foods.

For example, many breakfast cereals may be perceived as healthy, but using the traffic light system they’ll get a green light for saturated fat, amber for sodium and a red light for sugar.

In this instance these foods are unhealthy but no labelling identifies them as such. However, people do need to use common sense. Even though a product may have two ‘green lights’ and one red light,  consumers still need to understand that a high sugar content is inherently unhealthy.

As a health promotion exercise and an attempt to improve the obesity problem on both a national and international level, the traffic light system is a simple way to encourage us to be more conscious of the foods we choose.

As with many Government health initiatives, while the traffic light system may encourage people to be more selective about their food choices, there are those who will continue eat what they want regardless of its health impact.

Obesity is clearly an issue in the Western world. Anything that can be done to help improve the health and wellbeing of our population is always a good thing.

And while there may be some issues with traffic light labelling, encouraging people to choose healthier food options can and will have a positive impact on the health of our nation.

Written by Andrew Talati

Many say that, when it comes to choosing nutritious food for your children, it’s a parent’s responsibility to read the nutritional information on the box and make the right choice.

But, unless you’re a dietician, it’s a pretty hard task when companies like Kelloggs include misleading and confusing information on their product boxes.

Kelloggs and  other big food conglomerates are currently pushing the boundaries of food labeling in lieu of the imminent threat of government legislation.

Kelloggs puts their RDI percentages are at the top of cereal boxes. But is their message misleading?

Take a box of Coco Pops, for example. The nutritional information tells us that sugars make up 12% of your DI (dietary intake). You’d automatically think this is OK, BUT… Coco Pops also contains 36 grams of sugar per 100 grams or 36.5%.

Does Kelloggs nutritional information give you a fair representation of the amount of sugar contained in a box of Coco Pops? No.

If we go by Kelloggs’ information,  10% DI looks a lot lower than 36.5% sugar. Once again, this is just a clever way of manipulating nutritional information to give a skewed impression of a product.

Kelloggs recently said: “We now focus much of our efforts on promoting healthier cereals, such as Sultana Bran.”

Hmmm… Sultana Bran may provide a 1/3 of  daily fibre needs, but what about its 28.4% of sugar? Can it really be a healthier breakfast cereal?

The problem is that so many products are sold as high fibre or low fat, and therefore apparently healthy. But what companies don’t say is that they’re also high in sugar.

Put simply, we need a better system to manage nutritional information. It needs to be easier to understand, so that you don’t require an intricate knowledge of RDI or grams per 100 grams or grams per serving to understand it.

I quite like the traffic light system – it doesn’t get much simpler.  It’s so simple, in fact, that the Grocery Council of Australia are fighting its introduction or any discussion regarding its merits.

When we know that childhood obesity  tripled between 1985 and 1995 (according to the Australasian Society for the study of obesity), this issue becomes all the more serious.

So the real question is not whether you can advertise whatever you like and put the onus back on to parents to make the right decision.

It’s whether the current system of self-regulation is working at all.

Written by Andrew Talati

In a worrying development, the super foods term is being considered by Food Standards Australia for health claims.

Currently the code by Foods Standards Australia and New Zealand only allows for the Health claims of folate that the consumption of folate before and during pregnancy can help reduce the prevalence of spina bifida in babies.

While there is very clear evidence of the link between the consumption of folate and neural tube defects such as spina bifida, opening the flood gates to generic terminology which is not scientifically based is misleading consumers.

The idea behind the current food code is of providing an educational basis and to increase awareness.

Super Foods is a marketing term coined to increase the attractiveness of certain foods to drive sales.

I would be surprised in scientific circles if they use the term “Super” to describe reaction or result of the introduction of a chemicals, treatments or minerals to reduce or treat cancer.

Take the Heart Foundations Healthy Tick endorsement, which is really just another marketing tool in the arsenal of big corporations in the commoditising of our food supply.

I ask the question whether it is appropriate that McDonalds can have a Heart Foundation tick along side productions that have high levels of salt and fat.

Take dark chocolate for example which has high levels of anti-oxidants, if this a Superfood?, should we go out and eat a kilo of chocolate everyday as anti-oxidants have health benefits for your heart.

You only have to look at how food companies are currently misleading the consumer to see that introducing generic nondescript terminology will lead to the consumer being ill informed and mislead.

There will be a barrage of products with claims saying by eating product X that contains a known super food, you will reduce your risk of Diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

A more responsible approach is to educate the public about healthy eating rather than marketing food to solve the problems of a person having a poor diet.

It’s like telling someone to solve there clothes feeling too tight by adding another notch in their belt.