{"id":1612,"date":"2022-11-01T01:37:19","date_gmt":"2022-11-01T01:37:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kangaroovalley.nsw.au\/valleyvoice\/?p=1612"},"modified":"2022-11-01T01:37:19","modified_gmt":"2022-11-01T01:37:19","slug":"read-the-label","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kangaroovalley.nsw.au\/valleyvoice\/2022\/11\/01\/read-the-label\/","title":{"rendered":"Read the label"},"content":{"rendered":"

Much of my professional life has been spent lobbying for better information on food labels. Along with colleagues working in public health, we have had successes in encouraging governments to mandate some valuable information on labels, but we can\u2019t retire yet!\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Some labels still fail to provide details that would be valuable for health. Others make claims that may influence shoppers to buy food that is much less nutritious than it may appear to be. These are no help to healthier diets.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some legislated information on labels also leads to vast quantities of perfectly edible food being thrown out.<\/span><\/p>\n

What we need to know<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

It\u2019s obviously essential for a food label to include information that can help trace a product in case of some fault that may cause harm to those who consume the food. Food companies have been willing to include such information, with the name and address of the manufacturer or distributor of the product as well as codes that help them identify particular batches. Unfortunately, such information is not always forthcoming for products marketed by online \u2018influencers\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

For all food products, we also deserve to know all ingredients. Many of us fought a long battle before we won this particular issue. An executive of a major food company told me that I would get an ingredient list on food labels \u201cover my dead body\u201d. Sadly, he did die, but his colleagues eventually gave in when food technologists developed analytical tests that allowed them to work out what was in almost any food product. Eventually, a law was passed and companies had to list the ingredients in foods. The order is also regulated with the major ingredient listed first, followed by the second and so on. Unfortunately, I still come across some new manufacturers or small companies who are unaware of this legal requirement.<\/span><\/p>\n

The ingredients listed by their prominence is also useful for astute shoppers who can see whether their money is being well spent. However, it took years of further wrangles before the food industry agreed to list the actual percentage of any ingredient included in the product name. This means that \u2018strawberry yoghurt\u2019, for example, must tell you the percentage of strawberries included. If the \u2018strawberry\u2019 is provided only by strawberry flavouring, the product must be labelled as \u2018strawberry-flavoured yoghurt\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

For many products, such information will let you know if you\u2019re getting a \u2018bum steer\u2019. If you buy almond \u2018milk\u2019, I\u2019d suggest checking the quantity of almonds. Some brands contain as little as 2% almonds, meaning you\u2019re paying a lot for water and a heap of additives. It can also be an eye-opener to find that some chicken soup may have just 1% chicken. As I noted in last month\u2019s column, using the word \u2018honey\u2019 in the product name means the manufacturer must list the amount of honey. Checking the total sugar content on the nutrition information panel reveals that the product has far more sugar than honey. The small amount of honey provides the product with a health halo, but it rarely justifies the higher price.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many of us also believe we have a right to know the country of origin of products we buy. Food law now requires this, but again, most food companies argued against revealing it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Information that we don\u2019t need<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Many of us would like to see \u2018nutrition content claims\u2019 disappear from products that don\u2019t deserve a health halo. Examples would include breakfast cereals touting their added vitamins when the product may be high in added sugars.<\/span><\/p>\n

We\u2019d also like to see \u2018best before\u2019 dates removed from food labels. A \u2018use by\u2019 date indicates that the food may be unacceptable or unsafe in some way if consumed after the listed date. That\u2019s useful information, although some products such as unopened refrigerated yoghurt may well be safe after that date. Legally, foods cannot be sold if they are past their \u2018use by\u2019 date.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018Best before\u2019 dates were introduced in Australia in 1978. Most food companies were happy to oblige because they were seen as a valuable marketing tool. Providing the food is stored appropriately, \u2018best before\u2019 doesn\u2019t mean the food is unsafe. It\u2019s found on products that can last for many years, such as rice, sugar, vinegar, canned products, sauces, spreads and dressings.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018Best before\u2019 dates help companies and stores move products, which may help their profits. However, Australian households throw out 2.5 million tonnes of perfectly edible foods every year. Retail stores discard another 0.5 million tonnes. This creates waste of money and food. Wasted food uses available resources to produce and generates greenhouse gases in its disposal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Four major supermarkets in the United Kingdom have decided to remove \u2018best before\u2019 dates from many products, urging customers to use their own judgement as to the appropriate life of many foods. For foods such as nuts or cooking oils, which definitely lose quality after a time, your nose or taste test should alert you to their quality. It also makes sense to maintain an ordered pantry. While \u2018best before\u2019 dates remain law in Australia for products with less than two years\u2019 shelf life, don\u2019t automatically throw out products that have no signs of poor quality.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other issues<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

After years of public health workers\u2019 efforts, Australia is moving to mandatory disclosure of the quantity of added sugars on food labels. The usual disputes continue with food companies fighting against including the sugars from concentrated fruit and vegetable juices used in many toddler foods. Any idea that sugars extricated from fruits and vegetables are superior to those taken from sugar cane is false.<\/span><\/p>\n

Additional labelling issues that concern some of us include:<\/span><\/p>\n