# 'Traffic light' health labels on food to tackle Britain's obesity epidemic



## Northerner (May 13, 2012)

A new set of food labels highlighting the ?health value? of every item of food could be on the way.
Although four out of five food products already have some form of labelling, manufacturers and supermarket chains use widely different systems to illustrate the health content.
With obesity becoming a worrying issue, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will tomorrow launch a 12-week consultation to devise a single system showing how much fat, salt, sugar and calories the foods contain. 

Mr Lansley says his preferred option is for a system which incorporates a ?traffic light? code, with red for unhealthy, green for healthy and yellow for average.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tains-obesity-epidemic.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## Pumper_Sue (May 13, 2012)

Well whats new? The traffic light system was being used back in the 70's or 80's. Only difference it had all the carb values in it.
This was used by the then British Diabetic assoc. I still have the book packed away in one of the boxes from my move last year.


----------



## Northerner (May 13, 2012)

Pumper_Sue said:


> Well whats new? The traffic light system was being used back in the 70's or 80's. Only difference it had all the carb values in it.
> This was used by the then British Diabetic assoc. I still have the book packed away in one of the boxes from my move last year.



Given that there are 2.5m diabetics in the country, I wonder if pressure can be brought to bear to include full carb values on packaging, or if Lansley and his advisors will be oblivious to the usefulness of this 

How about everyone emailing DUK to make sure they pursue this possibility?

info@diabetes.org.uk


----------



## heasandford (May 13, 2012)

What bothers me is that if this becomes the norm, most companies will then stop putting the more detailed (incuding carbohydrates) information on the pack at all, unless it is a legal requirement, which as far as I know, it is not. (the law says that if you do put it on, it has to be in a certain format etc)

Incidentally, the 'Sugar' content referred to also does not include polyols, those nasty sugars sometimes used in 'diabetic' foods


----------



## Tina63 (May 13, 2012)

When my son was first diagnosed, I became obsessed with looking at the nutritional labels on food for the carb value and it very quickly became obvious that this was only available on the back of the packaging in very small writing, whereas the calories, fat, salt etc were all on the front in much bigger writing and more eye catching. I found that immensely frustrating and really felt a letter coming on to the Prime Minister to complain!  Of course I did nothing.  

We encountered too ignorance at restaurants (Harvester and Hungry Horse) about nutritional information in their food, when requesting carb content.  The best the Harvester could provide was their sheet advising of known allergy items and food suitable for vegetarians.  I found all the information I needed when I got home on their websites and felt like going straight back there and shoving it under their noses, but again did nothing.

I still find it unbelievable that with such a high number of diabetics in the country that this information is almost hidden on the packaging.  If I forget to take my glasses shopping I am really struggling to make out the values, especially on smaller items like pots of yoghurt for example.

It will also be interesting to see exactly how they grade various food items.  What is unhealthy for an older adult with a heart condition for example, may in fact be very much recommended for a growing toddler.  It's not going to be easy surely for them to decide what is and isn't healthy across the board.  Maybe they should just ban all ready meals, processed, canned and dried food and we all go back to keeping chickens and a cow to milk and grow our own vegetables!  Now look what you've done, you've got me started now!!!


----------



## Northerner (May 13, 2012)

Tina63 said:


> ...this information is almost hidden on the packaging.  If I forget to take my glasses shopping I am really struggling to make out the values, especially on smaller items like pots of yoghurt for example...



This is precisely my problem with the tiny writing on the back of packets! I don't usually carry my glasses around, although I do have a small magnifier I keep in my pocket, but it shouldn't be necessary  

I wrote this poem on the subject:



> Please Mr Food Man
> 
> I spy with my little eye,
> A hundred food labels that just pass me by
> ...


----------



## Monica (May 13, 2012)

The small writing on the back was exactly the reason I started wearing my "reading" glasses all the time 

This does worry me, I so hope they don't stop the carb contents on packaging. I can't see the full carb content going in the "traffic light" system.


----------



## DeusXM (May 14, 2012)

The problem is, to the general population and most nutritionists, carbs aren't seen as needing any particular information. Even the NHS isn't really that coherent on carbohydrates for people with diabetes.

The 'traffic light' system only highlights things that are decreed to be 'bad' - calories, fat, sugar, salt. There's also no context either. Something might have a 'good' amount of sugar, but if I eat 20 of them, then it's not good! 

The traffic light system also conveniently moves the goalposts when an inconvenient truth flare up. Foods with high sugar are 'bad'...unless it's fruit, when suddenly, the same actual sugar becomes good, as if your body makes a differentiation between added and natural sugar. We're told to suddenly just suspend our disbelief rather than engage with the more pertinent question.

I can't see them removing the full nutritional information from the back of a packet (fairly sure it's legally required). What's frustrating though is the 'traffic light' system will lead to complacency. You'll just get people deciding that as long as the stuff in packets has a green dot on it, they can eat as much as they like and continue to eat factory produced rubbish, instead of actually making smart dietary choices and making their own meals.


----------



## Northerner (May 14, 2012)

Some good points DeusXM  Perhaps what we should really be asking for is that the full nutritional information is not effectively 'hidden' by printing it in almost unreadable font sizes? I've always been surprised that the general public will accept the concept (and physical manifestations) of 'the small print' - why is it acceptable to print some very important information in tiny fonts - whether on food or legal documents or anything? Why is this not seen as an attempt to hide things that might detract from the fully visible marketing messages? I will be writing to Mr Lansley, I think


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 14, 2012)

DeusXM said:


> The problem is, to the general population and most nutritionists, carbs aren't seen as needing any particular information. Even the NHS isn't really that coherent on carbohydrates for people with diabetes.
> 
> ...I can't see them removing the full nutritional information from the back of a packet (fairly sure it's legally required). What's frustrating though is the 'traffic light' system will lead to complacency. You'll just get people deciding that as long as the stuff in packets has a green dot on it, they can eat as much as they like and continue to eat factory produced rubbish, instead of actually making smart dietary choices and making their own meals.




Couldn't agree more!

The current 'traffic lights' are hopeless. In many cases the packaging designers opt to render the traffic lights all in one shade of the same colour where their product would be mostly 'red', while other quite questionable foodstuffs proudly display yellows and greens because the right questions are not being asked. And the leafy green stuff that people should be encouraged to eat more of - well that doesn't come in shiny full-colour printed packaging so doesn't get a traffic light on it at all.


----------



## heasandford (May 14, 2012)

I was starting to wonder if I was being a bit scaremongering about the labelling, but the last lot of posts have clarified it beautifully!

Nutritional information is NOT a legal requirement on packaging, UNLESS there is a claim about the nutritional content ie low fat etc. However if the nutritional content is quoted, by law it has to be in a certain format and content, including carbohydrates. I assume therefore that if the traffic light system is used on the front, that constitutes nutritional labelling and then they also have to include the legal layout - somewhere! 

The questions being asked are based on GDAs - guideline daily amounts, and the packaging people have no leeway on this. 

However as previously said it is all too simplistic, density of calories and portion control seems to me to be a more useful guide, added to exercise.

I have emailed DUK, I encourage you all to do the same!


----------



## heasandford (May 14, 2012)

this is the link for the consultative document if anyone wants to trawl through it!

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh.../@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_134051.pdf

page 20 tells you how to respond! and it has to be by 6/8/12

I am going to, but would a joint response from us have a better effect?


----------



## Northerner (May 14, 2012)

heasandford said:


> this is the link for the consultative document if anyone wants to trawl through it!
> 
> http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh.../@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_134051.pdf
> 
> ...



Thanks Alison, I will have a peruse!  Not sure whether a joint response would be better than lots of individual ones saying the same thing - I'm tending towards the latter, but would welcome others' opinions


----------



## DeusXM (May 14, 2012)

> In many cases the packaging designers opt to render the traffic lights all in one shade of the same colour where their product would be mostly 'red', while other quite questionable foodstuffs proudly display yellows and greens because the right questions are not being asked.



Let's also not forget the old wheeze about quoting figures for a portion size that's physically impossible to offer. My mum's got a long-standing joke about portion sizing  - "this cake serves 10, providing two people don't want any pudding".


----------



## Northerner (May 14, 2012)

DeusXM said:


> Let's also not forget the old wheeze about quoting figures for a portion size that's physically impossible to offer. My mum's got a long-standing joke about portion sizing  - "this cake serves 10, providing two people don't want any pudding".



There are so many deceptions, which is why it's not a good idea to let the food industry regulate itself  What about those things you sometimes get when it gives the values per 100g but doesn't tell you what the object weighs!


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 14, 2012)

DeusXM said:


> Let's also not forget the old wheeze about quoting figures for a portion size that's physically impossible to offer. My mum's got a long-standing joke about portion sizing  - "this cake serves 10, providing two people don't want any pudding".



Ha ha! Yes, exactly! It's the same with the bottled soft drinks (like Coke Lucozade etc). Those standard ones you get in packs of 6 in the supermarket are all *two* servings in each bottle


----------



## FM001 (May 14, 2012)

DeusXM said:


> What's frustrating though is the 'traffic light' system will lead to complacency. You'll just get people deciding that as long as the stuff in packets has a green dot on it, they can eat as much as they like and continue to eat factory produced rubbish,




This would only happen if people cannot comprehend the information given, doesn't packaging with the traffic light system come with GDA's?


----------



## HelenM (May 14, 2012)

I thought I was good at label reading but I made a mistake this weekend.
I bought a bar of chocolate at a local fair chocolate fair (I know a rather stupid place to visit!) I tried a tiny bit:  tasted very rich and dark. 

I looked at the carbs per 100g :21g ...great I thought even less than my 'normal'  dark choc. 
Should have realised that  the label was in English not French
When I got home I realised that it was labelled for the US market.
Carbs were per  serving which was 40g ...and  to confuse things even more fibre was also included in the carb count.

And this is the bar being sold in dollars
http://worldwidechocolate.com/shop_yves_thuries_103.html


----------



## heasandford (May 14, 2012)

Northerner said:


> What about those things you sometimes get when it gives the values per 100g but doesn't tell you what the object weighs!



and that's against the law too!


----------



## DeusXM (May 15, 2012)

> This would only happen if people cannot comprehend the information given, doesn't packaging with the traffic light system come with GDA's?



I don't want to sound like I doubt the intelligence of the Great British public, but in my local supermarket it's quite clear the majority of people have no idea how use basic contraception (or have trouble connecting the dots to work out where babies come from), or that a family pack of cheese and onion rolls doesn't constitute a balanced diet. Is a GDA really going to mean anything to most people?


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 15, 2012)

I'm pretty sure most people actually know very well what they think constitutes a healthy diet. 

But

They also know that they don't like this... don't like that... thie partner doesn't like this... doesn't like that... That they all like a little treat every now and then. They know that it's hard to get kids to eat vegetables... that they only have 20 minutes to get something on the table

Eating fresh, good food is actually quite hard work. Many people's palettes have been schooled into preferring highly processed/refined alternatives. Alternatives which are cheap to buy and quick to prepare.

Added to which almost all the attention in coverage about obesity goes on fat and sugar which is only a small part of the story. You can get just as obese eating 'healthy' breakfast cereals, pasta and sandwiches and even _if_ people considered the GDAs I know for a fact that I would gain weight on 300g of carbs a day - while for others it would be nothing like enough.

I don't really know what the government _can_ do. With the ingenuity and weight of all the marketing messages in supermarkets screaming 'buy me!' 'eat me!' 'special offer' 'buy 6 for the price of 1' and the herd mentality of shoppers what chance does a leaflet or poster seen once or twice have?


----------



## heasandford (May 15, 2012)

All the more reason to ensure that information given works for those who are going to use it! 

I am starting to resent the traffic light sysytem even more! 

It seems to me that the basic nutritional information is very straightforward, per 100g allows comparison between products Perhaps serving size needs to be made much clearer or left off, as packs usually have to have a weight on, although I have now discovered not necessarily with small indidvidual confectionary items (ie mars bars etc!), which seems ludicrously contradictory. Of course the trouble with campaigning for this would be that it feels like supporting the very things we 'shouldn't' be eating!


----------



## heasandford (May 17, 2012)

Here is my e-mail reply from DUK - 
Diabetes UK fully appreciates your comments and concerns and will take note of them. 

Meanwhile I am linking you to info via our website on this subject which I hope you will find useful.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/Media-centre/Traffic-light-system/

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to...tes/Know-your-labels/Traffic-light-labelling/

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/News_Landing_Page/Call-for-clearer-food-labelling/

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us...om-the-Food-Standards-Agency-and-Diabetes-UK/

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Food_and_recipes/ 

We do hope that this has been helpful, but please do get in touch with us again if you want to. You can also call the Careline on the number below if you would like to talk things through.

all a bit bland, and clearly they think traffic lights help. Oh well, I will respond to the consultation anyway!


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 5, 2015)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Couldn't agree more!
> The current 'traffic lights' are hopeless. In many cases the packaging designers opt to render the traffic lights all in one shade of the same colour where their product would be mostly 'red', while other quite questionable foodstuffs proudly display yellows and greens because the right questions are not being asked. And the leafy green stuff that people should be encouraged to eat more of - well that doesn't come in shiny full-colour printed packaging so doesn't get a traffic light on it at all.



Recently diagnosed as Type 2 (this past week) and already trying to get my head round all the dos/don'ts especially as my cholesterol is also high so 'low fat' can often mean 'higher sugar' (and vice versa!) 

I've just come back from my second shopping trip, the first big one, since, and as a graphic designer I was shocked at a couple of big names - Flora and Ryvita - blatant breaking the traffic light coding by having all green on one type because it's their brand colour! Fortunately I had the sense to double check, and a lite version of Flora had all blue(!) while the Ryvita had all orange on another and all maroon on a third! Surely their should be some regulation where green, orange and red (or any colour close enough to be interpreted as them) are forbidden from the labelling? Most opted for a neutral but surely these brands are not only taking the p*ss but endangering people's lives!?


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 5, 2015)

Hello Shaqui

Welcome to the forum 

From what I have read you need to be quite careful about the whole 'saturated fat' issue in relation to cholesterol. From what I can tell the cholesterol that might result from consuming saturated fat is a) probably not very significant and b) going to be HDL (generally referred to as 'good' cholesterol).

High consumption of carbohydrate, on the other hand, is likely to result in elevated LDL ('bad' cholesterol) and triglycerides (the nastiest of all).

His blog post by well-known cholesterol skeptic Dr Malcolm Kendrick is quite technical, but very interesting nonetheless: http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2015/06/23/what-happens-to-the-carbs/


----------



## AlisonM (Jul 5, 2015)

Ratioining! Rationing is the answer, according to the statistics the population as a whole was more healthy under rationing than ever before or since. Everyone had an 'adequate' diet, or so I'm told. Or they could reinstate Home Ec and make it compulsory.


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 6, 2015)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Hello Shaqui
> 
> Welcome to the forum
> 
> ...



Hi... Mike?

Thanks  It's my overall cholesterol which is high, as well as being - according to my Body Mass Index now - slightly obese. My 'bad cholesterol' level is actually the lower of the two. It's just in conjunction with diabetes, it puts me at a higher risk now of stroke and/or heart attack (that's besides the one you get looking at the price of 'healthy option' foods!)


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 13, 2015)

Has there been any - or is there ongoing - checking that the traffic labels are a/ accurate in grammage/percentage and/or b/ honest?


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 13, 2015)

Also, regarding the traffic light coding, who actually 'regulates' (if such a term is applicable) so complaints can be made if you believe a company is in breach of accuracy or representation?


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 26, 2015)

I'm having a lot of problems with the traffic light system... how can something have 0.2g be 3% and marked red, another which is 0.4g be 7% (amber) yet another be 0.5g - 3% - and green? I know that sometimes it's so much of a pack - half a tin, or a single slice, or some other fraction but is this just plain muddling the issue?


----------



## Northerner (Jul 26, 2015)

Personally, I pay no attention to the Traffic light system. I just concentrate on the amount of carbs in things, particularly fast-acting carbs, like sugar, but always noting total carbs since all carbs will affect my levels. I came to the conclusion that fat is pretty much irrelevant to me and I am fortunate that I don't need to watch my weight so I ignore calories as well, on the whole.


----------



## robert@fm (Jul 26, 2015)

One thing I've noticed is that all the labels above list "sugars" instead of total carbohydrates, which would have been far more useful.

By the way, the picture is too wide (1280px); it probably looks OK on an HD (1920x1080) display, but I for one have a WXGA (1366x768) display, and large images such as the above mess up the forum for me. To be sure of displaying properly for everyone, images should be no larger than 800px.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 26, 2015)

I've replaced the picture with a smaller version


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 28, 2015)

robert@fm said:


> By the way, the picture is too wide (1280px); it probably looks OK on an HD (1920x1080) display, but I for one have a WXGA (1366x768) display, and large images such as the above mess up the forum for me. To be sure of displaying properly for everyone, images should be no larger than 800px.



Sorry, I used the lowest resolution setting on my camera. I'll try and downsize more before uploading again


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 28, 2015)

But back to a previously ignored question - and excuse my ignorance as I've only been diagnosed for about a month so haven't even been on a DESMOND course or met with a dietician yet - who actually determines the traffic light system, and monitors it to make sure it is a/ accurate or b/ not misleading? And are they open to being asked to check designers/brands/packaging are these?


----------



## heasandford (Jul 28, 2015)

Not sure whether this will show but I'll try and post the regulations on here. Shaqui.

The criteria for ‘Low’ for each nutrient are based on the levels in the current European Union (EU) proposal on Nutrition and Health Claims. They have to be monitored by Trading Standards so you can complain to them, but take it up with the manufacturer or retailer first.

 Oh dear, I can't copy and paste the table, hope this works instead - 
Criteria per 100g

FAT
LOW (GREEN)≤ 3 g/100g OR ≤ 1.5 g/100 ml
MEDIUM (AMBER)> 3 - <20 g/100g OR > 1.5 - <10 g/100ml
HIGH (RED)≥ 20 g/100g OR ≥ 10g/100ml
SATURATES
LOW (GREEN)≤ 1.5 g/100g OR ≤ 0.75 g/100 ml
MEDIUM (AMBER)> 1.5 - <5 g/100g OR > 0.75 - <2.5 g/100ml
HIGH (RED)≥ 5 g/100g OR ≥ 2.5g/100ml
TOTAL SUGARS
Low (green)≤ 5 g/100g OR ≤ 2.5 g/100 ml
MEDIUM (AMBER)> 5 - <15 g/100g OR > 2.5 - <7.5 g/100ml
HIGH (RED)≥ 15 g/100g OR ≥ 7.5g/100ml
SALT
LOW (GREEN)≤ 0.3 g/100g OR ≤ 0.3 g/100ml
MEDIUM (AMBER)> 0.3 - <1.5g/100g OR > 0.3 - <1.5g/100ml
HIGH (RED)≥ 1.5 g/100g OR ≥ 1.5 g/100ml


----------



## DaveB (Jul 28, 2015)

Hi. I wouldn't worry to much about traffic lights etc but do read the actual ingredients. You need to keep the carbs down and don't worry too much about fats. Protein is fine. The traffic light system is to some extent based around the 'fat is bad, carbs are good' mantra and not very helpful as carbs are not good for us.


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 29, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Hi. I wouldn't worry to much about traffic lights etc but do read the actual ingredients. You need to keep the carbs down and don't worry too much about fats. Protein is fine. The traffic light system is to some extent based around the 'fat is bad, carbs are good' mantra and not very helpful as carbs are not good for us.



The thing is I have also, simultaneous to being diagnosed Type 2, been told my cholesterol is high, and that I should cut down on saturated fats. So as well as metformin, I'm on a statin too. Whether the latter is a permanent prescription, or I will be able to come off it if my cholesterol lowers through diet and exercise, has not yet been made clear to me. But at least my blood pressure was deemed to be pretty good, otherwise I'd be looking at traffic lights which are all green, and there ain't many of those! (Precious few with green sugar and saturates!)


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 29, 2015)

heasandford said:


> Not sure whether this will show but I'll try and post the regulations on here. Shaqui.
> 
> The criteria for ‘Low’ for each nutrient are based on the levels in the current European Union (EU) proposal on Nutrition and Health Claims. They have to be monitored by Trading Standards so you can complain to them, but take it up with the manufacturer or retailer first.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that. Much appreciated!


----------



## DaveB (Jul 29, 2015)

Shaqui said:


> The thing is I have also, simultaneous to being diagnosed Type 2, been told my cholesterol is high, and that I should cut down on saturated fats. So as well as metformin, I'm on a statin too. Whether the latter is a permanent prescription, or I will be able to come off it if my cholesterol lowers through diet and exercise, has not yet been made clear to me. But at least my blood pressure was deemed to be pretty good, otherwise I'd be looking at traffic lights which are all green, and there ain't many of those! (Precious few with green sugar and saturates!)


Some would say that saturated fats and blood cholesterol are not closley linked despite what we have been told. Many appear to find that a low carb diet with a sensible amount of fat improves the LDL/HDL ratio; it's not total cholesterol that matters but the ratio of LDL/HDL.


----------



## Shaqui (Jul 30, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Some would say that saturated fats and blood cholesterol are not closley linked despite what we have been told. Many appear to find that a low carb diet with a sensible amount of fat improves the LDL/HDL ratio; it's not total cholesterol that matters but the ratio of LDL/HDL.



I was told my 'bad cholesterol' was at a reasonable level but that combined with the diabetes and my BMI put me at a higher risk of a heart attack/stroke. As diabetes can't be cured, only controlled, lowering fat would lower that risk.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 30, 2015)

Shaqui said:


> I was told my 'bad cholesterol' was at a reasonable level but that combined with the diabetes and my BMI put me at a higher risk of a heart attack/stroke. As diabetes can't be cured, only controlled, lowering fat would lower that risk.



There's a growing body of scientific opinion that carbohydrates, not fat, are responsible for elevated cholesterol levels. Fat has been vilified for decades, yet people, despite observing the warnings and manufacturers going for 'low fat' products (and increasing carbohydrate/sugars at the same time), have consistently been getting fatter and fatter. It's worth reading The Great Cholesterol Con to get an alternative perspective on cholesterol


----------



## heasandford (Jul 30, 2015)

Just a word of caution - it is overall health being considered as well. There is ample evidence that there is a relationship between saturated fat intake and breast cancer for instance. 

Carbohydrates are the basis of modern diet originally because they were the environmentally cheap way of keeping mankind alive, before the health industry and food industry got involved. It costs more to produce fat - time, effort etc 

All of the information out there has various truths, but the scientific evidence has not yet come down on the side of cutting out carbohydrates. I still think that BALANCE is the best description yet for life in general!

I expect to get some friendly disagreement!


----------

