Home

With consumers becoming more health conscious and trying to adopt a healthier lifestyle, is food advertising misleading consumers to make inappropriate choices.

While advertising standards govern what claims can be made in respect of the particular products or services and Food Standards Australian and New Zealand addressing some issues regarding contents of products it’s a free for all with saying whatever you like regarding the benefits of particular foods or insinuating the source of the ingredients.

A good example of a product is the Spring Valley apple juice, this advertisement was placed on the side of the tram shelter. It gives the impression of freshness, purity and nature, that the juice is derived from a natural stream with abundant wildlife in the background.

While consumers obviously know that Spring Valley product doesn’t come from a stream, it does create the overall impression of freshness, purity and nature that together projects a healthy product.

However when you look a little bit deeper at the nutritional panel, it paints a different story with 99% of the Apple juice being reconstituted. So is reconstituted juice really fresh, Does the tagline in the advertisement “where spring comes from” really give a true indication that the product contains reconstituted juice?.

Well reconstituted juice contains aseptic juice which is apple juice which is being heated to kill any bacteria and other nasty stuff installed for anywhere up to two years.

On the front of the actual Orange juice label is a mini label stating that each serve contains 9% of the daily energy intake, however the product contains 12.3% sugar.

There is also a note saying a rich source of vitamin C however the ingredients panel states that vitamin C (absorbing acid) has been added. So in effect it’s one step away from actually consuming a vitamin C tablet however in a more digestible form. It makes for an interesting question if the products is natural and pure given the added Vitamin C and what has happened to the vitamin C naturally contained within the Apple juice.

So while drinking apple juice in the reconstituted form is better than a soft drink, it does beg the question whether there should be more responsible advertising standards in regards to the messages being projected at consumers.

While this isn’t in the same category as Cokes misleading advertisements, we need to have some accountability.

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.

Current Food labelling is misleading consumers with confusing information for the average person. By using a myriad of information, the product can appear to be healthy and within acceptable limits when in fact it is giving a different perception.

Research has shown that people do not fully understand what DI or daily intake represents or what a serving size should be based on there height or body weight.

Uncle Toby’s bars appear to be healthy with low levels of sugar when compared to the daily intake but contain a whopping 28.2% sugar based 28.2gms per 100gms.

By focusing on the serving size of 31.3gms, the sugar contained can be manipulated to appear low at 8.8gms or 10% of DI, rather than the true figure of 28.2gm/100gms.

Also using percentages captivates your interest. 20% of your daily wholegrain target, which is great if you’re not worried about consuming high levels of sugar (28.2%) and fat (17.3%) or more importantly 9.4% saturated fat, the stuff we should be avoiding.

Well to me a product that contains (8.8 grams/31.3grams) or 28% sugar is confectionery, so a 53 grams Mars bar has 31 grams of sugar so 2 Uncle Toby bars has 17.6 grams of sugar, only half that of a equivalent Mars bar.

It is interesting that the lines can be blurred when it comes to the language used to sell the product, things like “Goodness for greatness’.

I’m not sure what that you would consider vegetable fat, glucose, sugar, emulsifier (Soy Lecithin) & preservative 220 as being good for you, Goodness implies healthy which sounds a bit strange given this ingredients listing.

The BIG picture of the dripping stick of honey & an image of almonds implies that “Honey” and “almonds” constitutes a significant proportion of the ingredient listing, rather than a meagre 1% each.

A better system would be using the “Traffic light” system which has been introduced by the City Of Melbourne, which would mean that the Uncle Toby bars would be given a red for sugar & saturated fats, orange for general fats and green for salt.

The government is exploring the possibility of making it mandatory that all fast food outlets include the amount of calories on their products.

With no immediate solution to Australia’s obesity problem, a range of measures need to be introduced. With Australia’s fast food consumption increasing by 109% from 1999 – 2009, there needs to be more education and information regarding what people are eating.

Even as we speak McDonalds are advertising their “Family Dinner Box”, but walk into McDonalds and try and get some nutritional info, mission impossible.

The City of Melbourne have taking leadership with regards to food vendors in Melbourne’s QV food court who can voluntarily adopt there Traffic light system of food labeling with Red, Amber and green denoting what is good, ok and to not so great.

The traffic light system was also introduced as part of the tender process for the new Royal Children’s Hospital.

By having these labeling panels or nutritional information available, people can make more informed decisions about what they consume.

Well the danger is blogging about The Special K 2 week challenge is it promotes awareness of there product, be it good or bad.

So I like the premise of the challenge but behind it lurks a large multi national who has shareholders, mmm, what do share holder like, seeing healthy people around the globe, eating nutritious food and exercising regularly or maybe buying more Special K products.

Well Kellogg’s mission statement says “To drive sustainable growth through the power of our people and brands by better serving the needs of our consumers, customers and communities”.

So are there any elements of being a socially responsible company with the ultimate goal being focused around improving the health of their customers rather than increasing sales sales or giving the market the type of products they want but don’t need or are marketing about why they need Special K products?

Well if the program didn’t involve buying there highly processed products, it would be awesome but guess what, part of their program involves buying their special breakfast bars and eating Special K.

So lets look at there breakfast suggestions, Special K every morning mixed in with fruit & yoghurt, toast and muffins.

Remember that this company has also made some nutritional claims about Coco Pops “now supports your child’s immunity”