Home

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

With two thirds of the Australian population overweight or obese, there really needs to be some regulations regarding food packaging and advertising. KFC latest product, the Double Down Burger users the Man time copy line, with a massive 1939 kJ.

While a person’s daily energy intake will vary depending on your age, sex, body size and the level of activity that you engage in, a 31-year-old to 50-year-old male weighing 71 kg requires 8300kj per day based on no physical activities, just to sustain life.

So in just one sitting without the added chips or soft drink nearly a quarter of the days energy requirements are up represented by this fat laden burger (22.3gms).

This advertisement appeared on Facebook under a clients profile who is in their mid-20s. This type of advertising is extremely clever as it targets teenage boys who see the high levels of fat as a gastronomic challenge while men may find this targeting their masculinity.

This is a classic case where food labeling is required that identifies this as a high health risk product given the high percentage of energy and fat.

A tax on energy dense foods would make such products extremely expensive and would remove their attractiveness as a product to be consumed on a regular basis.

This is a classic example where one would need to really evaluate KFC’s motivation in bringing out such a highly energy dense product when they’re recommending that the clients climb the stairs to burn 930 kJ which is just under half the energy contained with this one burger.

Without singling out KFC, the other fast food companies are hardly squeaky clean with hungry Jack’s ultimate double whopper burger packing our humongous 5085 kJ and McDonald’s the Mac having 2060 kJ. I guess the most disturbing thing about the KFC double down burger is the fact that there is no bread and vegetables whatsoever, just meat or rather processed meat and preservatives.

Hopefully this product stimulates a lot of debate about advertising standards, food packaging and perhaps even a energy tax.

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.