tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/food-labelling-1098/articlesFood labelling – The Conversation2024-03-11T21:26:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2217202024-03-11T21:26:04Z2024-03-11T21:26:04ZAllergen warning: “Vegan” foods may contain milk and eggs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570731/original/file-20240112-29-t9z77z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C0%2C989%2C667&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When buying pre-packaged foods, consumers with allergies rely on the declarations in the list of ingredients to identify safe foods.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The popularity of vegan diets continues to increase around the world. Indeed, in 2023, the vegan food market grew to <a href="https://www.expertmarketresearch.com/reports/vegan-food-market">more than US$27 billion</a>.</p>
<p>The term “vegan” usually refers to foods that contain no animal ingredients (meat, poultry, eggs, milk, fish, seafood).</p>
<p>While some consumers consider them to be healthier, vegan foods are also an interesting alternative for consumers concerned about the environment, sustainable development, and animal welfare.</p>
<p>But another type of consumer may be turning to these products for a completely different reason: people who are allergic to proteins of animal origin, such as cow’s milk and eggs.</p>
<p>In view of this, <a href="https://parera.ulaval.ca">our research group</a>, a leader in food allergen risk analysis in Canada, decided to explore <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13223-023-00836-w">the following two questions</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Do consumers who are allergic to animal proteins consider vegan products to be safe?</p></li>
<li><p>And, if so, are these products truly safe for them?</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>What’s in it for consumers with allergies?</h2>
<p>The answers to these questions are crucial for people with food allergies who risk suffering potentially severe reactions (anaphylaxis) from consuming these products.</p>
<p>Food allergies affect around <a href="https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(19)30912-2/fulltext">six per cent of Canadians</a>, including 0.8 per cent who are allergic to eggs, and 1.1 per cent to milk.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that different forms <a href="https://foodallergycanada.ca/living-with-allergies/allergy-treatments-and-therapies/treatments-and-therapies/">of immunotherapy or allergen desensitization</a> have shown promising results, the most effective strategy for avoiding allergic reactions is still to refrain from eating foods that may contain allergens.</p>
<p>When buying pre-packaged foods, consumers with allergies rely on declarations in the list of ingredients to identify foods that are safe for them. Regulatory authorities who are responsible for the quality and safety of food recognize the importance of accurate ingredients declarations for allergic consumers. Thus, it is <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-labelling/allergen-labelling.html">mandatory</a> to list every allergen that has been voluntarily added to a pre-packaged food item.</p>
<p>However, when it comes to ingredients that may be unintentionally present — for example, as due to cross-contact during food processing — there is a regulatory gap. These ingredients are generally identified with the warning “may contain,” which is used (or sometimes <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213219818300102">overused</a>) voluntarily and randomly by food processors.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the term “vegan” is neither standardized nor defined in Canadian regulations. In fact, <a href="https://inspection.canada.ca/food-labels/labelling/industry/composition-and-quality/eng/1625516122300/1625516122800?chap=2">the Canadian Food Inspection Agency</a> notes that, with regard to the use of the term “vegan,”</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…companies can apply additional criteria or standards that take account of other factors in addition to the ingredients of the food.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, details or examples of these elements are not provided. This lack of a precise regulatory definition prevents the implementation of compliance requirements.</p>
<p>Yet, most <a href="https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/search/site?search_api_fulltext=vegan">recalls</a> of products marketed as “vegan” are due to the presence of undeclared ingredients of animal origin, in particular milk and eggs.</p>
<h2>What do consumers with food allergies say?</h2>
<p>In this context, and as part of a <a href="https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2583779/v1">survey</a> of consumers with allergies conducted in collaboration with <a href="https://foodallergycanada.ca">Food Allergy Canada</a>, we asked participants who indicated that they were allergic (or were the parents of a child who was allergic) to eggs or milk if they bought products marketed as “vegan.”</p>
<p>Of the 337 respondents, 72 per cent said they sometimes included these products in their purchases, 14 per cent said they always did, and 14 per cent never.</p>
<p>These <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13223-023-00836-w">results</a> suggest that these consumers do, indeed, consider the claim “vegan” as an indicator of the absence of animal proteins — an absence which, again, is not supported by any regulatory requirement or definition.</p>
<p>Since the absence of these ingredients is not guaranteed, these consumption habits could put people who are allergic to eggs and/or milk at risk.</p>
<p>An education campaign to clarify that the term “vegan” is an indicator of dietary <em>preferences</em> and not <em>risks</em> would therefore be important for this community.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569134/original/file-20240112-29-5nq5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="dark chocolate" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569134/original/file-20240112-29-5nq5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569134/original/file-20240112-29-5nq5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569134/original/file-20240112-29-5nq5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569134/original/file-20240112-29-5nq5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569134/original/file-20240112-29-5nq5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569134/original/file-20240112-29-5nq5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569134/original/file-20240112-29-5nq5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some dark chocolate bars marketed as ‘certified vegan’ contain milk proteins.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Do vegan products contain ingredients of animal origin?</h2>
<p>The fact that 86 per cent of survey respondents buy “vegan” products suggests that the incidence of allergic reactions linked to these foods is potentially rare.</p>
<p>We therefore <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13223-023-00836-w">analyzed</a> the egg and milk protein content of “vegan” and “plant-based” products marketed in Québec.</p>
<p>A total of 124 products were analyzed for the presence of egg (64) and/or milk (87) proteins.</p>
<p>Egg protein was not detected in any samples, but five samples contained milk proteins: these included four dark chocolate bars marketed as “certified vegan” and a supermarket brand chestnut cake.</p>
<p>These five products declared the potential presence of milk with a warning, “may contain milk.”</p>
<p>We used the concentrations of milk proteins quantified in these products, combined with the quantities of the food that would be consumed in a single eating occasion, to calculate an exposure dose, in milligrams of allergen protein. We then estimated the probability of these doses provoking a reaction in the allergic populations concerned by using <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691520307213">correlation models</a>. Our results show that the calculated doses could trigger reactions in six per cent of milk-allergic consumers, for the chocolate bars, and one per cent, for the cake.</p>
<h2>How can consumers with food allergies protect themselves?</h2>
<p>Although this level of risk may be perceived as low, it is likely to vary without notice. And this will remain the case until regulatory requirements are put in place.</p>
<p>In fact, rather than attributing it to the presence of a “vegan” or “plant-based” claim, this level of risk most likely reflects <a href="https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(22)02590-7.pdf">good allergen management practices</a>, characteristic of the North American food manufacturing sector.</p>
<p>Thus, even if a statement “may contain milk” seems contradictory in a “vegan” or “plant-based” product, people allergic to milk should interpret it as an indication that this product may pose a risk to their health.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221720/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samuel Godefroy's research activities are funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Foreign Agriculture Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, R-Biopharm GmbH and R-Biopharm Canada Inc. He acts as an expert advisor to members of the food and beverage industry, international organizations (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and the World Bank), international food regulatory bodies such as the China National Centre for Food Safety Risk Assessment and consumer organizations such as Food Allergy Canada. Godefroy is Chairman of the Board of the Global Food Regulatory Science Society (GFoRSS).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jérémie Théolier et Silvia Dominguez ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.</span></em></p>Vegan foods are considered by most consumers to have no ingredients of animal origin, but they may actually contain milk proteins.Silvia Dominguez, Professionnelle de recherche en sciences des aliments, Université LavalJérémie Théolier, Professionel de recherche en sciences des aliments, Université LavalSamuel Godefroy, Professeur titulaire - Sciences des aliments, Université LavalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2169152023-11-13T14:43:04Z2023-11-13T14:43:04ZBad food choices: clearer labels aim to help South Africans pick healthier options<p>South Africans have a hard time figuring out which foods are unhealthy when they go shopping. But this is about to change.</p>
<p>South African supermarkets currently sell <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980022000374">large amounts of unhealthy, ultra-processed foods</a>. Packaged foods in particular have high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat – all things that are bad for our health.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-020-00650-z">Research</a> shows that the consumption of these foods is linked to increasing rates of obesity and related diseases such as diabetes.</p>
<p>Many countries have been looking for better labelling systems which help consumers understand whether a product is unhealthy. Countries that have adopted simpler labelling systems have seen consumers making <a href="https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/c1f4d81d-en">healthier choices</a> about food. </p>
<p>South Africa’s health minister published draft <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202304/48428rg11572gon3287.pdf">food labelling regulations</a> in April. These will introduce a new labelling scheme, limit advertising of unhealthy foods, and restrict the use of misleading health claims.</p>
<p>The draft regulations propose clearer food labels, which include a new triangle highlighting that the food contains ingredients that are unhealthy. These logos will be placed on the front of a product.</p>
<p>We are part of the <a href="https://www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org/nutrient-warning-labels-work-in-south-africa-results-from-a-randomized-controlled-trial">working group</a> that advised the Department of Health on front-of-package nutrition labelling, drawing on our expertise in dietetics, nutrition, public health and the law. </p>
<p>We worked with consumers and experts on food labelling, advertising and obesity prevention to create a system designed to work well in South Africa.</p>
<p>But it was a complicated process. This is how we did it. </p>
<h2>How do we know which food is unhealthy?</h2>
<p>The first step is to find a way to identify unhealthy foods. There are <a href="https://www.emro.who.int/nutrition/reduce-fat-salt-and-sugar-intake/index.html">international guidelines</a> on how much sugar, salt and saturated fat people should be eating. These can be used to measure whether a food has too much of these ingredients. </p>
<p>Figuring out whether a food is unhealthy can be tricky, but luckily, other countries around the world have adopted systems like this before, known as <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082584">nutrient profile models</a>, and we could build on what they had already done. </p>
<p>We looked at what foods were being sold in South African supermarkets. We searched for nutrient profiling models that identify unhealthy foods and work well in other countries and tested these on the South African food supply.</p>
<p>We found that the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082584">Chilean model</a>, which focuses only on unhealthy ingredients, sugar, sodium and saturated fat, would work well because it was simple to implement and was able to identify unhealthy products very easily and accurately. </p>
<p>We then modified the Chilean model to make it work for South Africa.</p>
<h2>Choosing the right label</h2>
<p>The next thing to decide was what kind of label South Africa should use. There are lots of different systems but not all work well. </p>
<p>One uses colour coding. For example, a low level of salt would get a green marker while high sugar would get a red one.</p>
<p>There are also descriptive labels which don’t tell consumers whether the amounts are good or bad – just whether they are present.</p>
<p>Then there are warning labels, often shaped like traffic signs, to alert consumers to the high levels of unhealthy ingredients such as saturated fat, sugar and salt.</p>
<p>We looked at how to design a label that would be <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257626">understandable</a> to the average South African. We consulted South Africans on each element of the label, from the wording and size to the symbols and colour.</p>
<p>We developed a black triangle – inspired by a danger warning sign – which would stand out on colourful food packages and included pictures so that anyone, even those who can’t read or speak English, would be able to understand them.</p>
<p>The last part of this work was a nationally representative randomised, control trial of different labelling systems. Almost <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666322003749">2,000</a> people across different income groups and education levels participated. </p>
<p>We also found that the warning labels led to consumers <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666322003749">changing their minds</a> about what food they would consider buying.</p>
<p>Earlier this year, South Africans had the opportunity to give comments on the regulations that will see this labelling system implemented. Now it’s up to the department to decide when and how to put these regulations into action.</p>
<p>Hopefully soon all South Africans will be able to see at a glance which foods are bad for their health.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216915/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Safura Abdool Karim receives funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Makoma Bopape receives funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rina Swart receives funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the National Department of Health and the DSI/NRF COE in Good Security. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tamryn Frank receives funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies. </span></em></p>Countries that have adopted clear food labels have seen the health benefits. Researchers explain how a new system to alert South African consumers to unhealthy choices was developed.Safura Abdool Karim, Postdoctoral fellow, Johns Hopkins UniversityMakoma Bopape, Lecturer in Department of Human Nutrition and Dietetic, University of LimpopoRina Swart, Professor, University of the Western CapeTamryn Frank, Researcher, University of the Western CapeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2092512023-07-20T08:13:46Z2023-07-20T08:13:46ZHalf of all South Africans are overweight or obese. Warning labels on unhealthy foods help change that<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538049/original/file-20230718-19-1u0mwr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Unhealthy diets are a major risk factor for diseases like cancers, diabetes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sheila Fitzgerald/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa’s national health department recently invited public comment on <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202304/48460rg11575gon3337.pdf#page=11">regulations for warning labels on food packaging</a>. The regulations specify how pre-packaged food should be labelled. Broadly speaking, “front-of-pack” labels provide information about the overall nutritional quality of foods and beverages. </p>
<p>The aim is to allow consumers to make healthier food choices. The proposed rule is that food products containing added saturated fat, added sugar, or added sodium, and which exceed prescribed cut-off values, must have a warning label. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536041/original/file-20230706-25-711c6b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536041/original/file-20230706-25-711c6b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536041/original/file-20230706-25-711c6b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536041/original/file-20230706-25-711c6b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536041/original/file-20230706-25-711c6b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=178&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536041/original/file-20230706-25-711c6b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=178&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536041/original/file-20230706-25-711c6b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=178&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An example of the warning label proposed for food containing high sugar, fat or salt.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Globally there’s been an <a href="https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/press-releases/poor-diets-damaging-childrens-health-worldwide-warns-unicef">increase</a> in the availability and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9370540/">consumption</a> of unhealthy food. This has contributed to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399967/">bad health outcomes</a>, including a rise in overweight and obesity. </p>
<p>Unhealthy diet is a major risk factor for noncommunicable diseases such as heart attacks, cancers and diabetes. People who are <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/obesity-health-consequences-of-being-overweight">overweight or obese</a> are at greater risk of developing these conditions. </p>
<p>The figures in South Africa are especially worrying. Half of <a href="https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/opinion/2022/2022-09/obesity-costs-south-africa-billions-we-did-the-sums.html">all adults</a> are either overweight (23%) or obese (27%). Noncommunicable diseases account for <a href="http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932018.pdf">59.3% of reported deaths</a> in the country. </p>
<p>The effectiveness of front-of-pack warning labels is supported by <a href="https://www.paho.org/en/news/1-12-2022-adoption-front-pack-nutrition-warnings-can-help-decrease-obesity-cardiovascular">international evidence</a>. The adoption of these nutrition warnings can help combat obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. <a href="https://www.foodsafetyafrica.net/south-africa-releases-draft-labeling-regulations-envisioned-to-encourage-better-food-choices/">Several countries have introduced them</a>, including Singapore (1998), Thailand (2007), Chile (approved in 2012, implemented in 2016), Ecuador (2013), Indonesia (2014), Mexico (2016) and Colombia (2022). </p>
<p><a href="https://heala.org/what-is-front-of-package-labelling-and-why-does-south-africa-need-it/">Local evidence</a> has supported international evidence and found that <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257626">South African consumers have a positive attitude towards warning labels</a> on ultra-processed foods and drinks. When asked if they would be open to having warning labels on food, study participants said that warning labels were easy to understand and would assist them in quickly identifying unhealthy products. </p>
<h2>The content of the regulations</h2>
<p>In addition to the warning labels, the regulations also introduce marketing restrictions. </p>
<p>Regulation 52 relates to any packaged food with front-of-pack warning labels. The regulation limits the advertisement of these foods in various ways. It prohibits the use of celebrities and cartoon characters, competitions, gifts, collectable items and other items that may appeal to children. The abuse of positive family values to encourage consumption of unhealthy food is also prohibited. The advertisements are also required to have a warning.</p>
<p>This is line with the <a href="https://www.unicef.org/media/116686/file/Front-of-Pack%20Nutrition%20Labelling%20(FOPNL).pdf">World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recommendations</a> to implement <a href="https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0950329322001665?token=A6F5C6FB12479AF33C18C009CBB1C9A72DF19FA43768E909E13683C324EE45B291B3C637B8353343541F153338F33491&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20230510133548">evidence-based policies</a>, which include mandatory front-of-pack warning labels and marketing restrictions on unhealthy foods and beverages. In particular, the WHO has noted that an unhealthy food environment includes the promotion or marketing of unhealthy foods and has linked this to the undermining of children’s rights.</p>
<p>In my opinion as a public health law and policy researcher, some aspects of the regulations deserve commendation. </p>
<p>The first is the fact that the front-of-pack warning labels are <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00552-5">mandatory</a>. This allows for the regulation of unhealthy products that play a role in noncommunicable disease development. </p>
<p>The second relates to the inclusion of a mandatory warning icon for <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aspartame-who-possibly-carcinogenic-artificial-sweetener/">sweeteners</a> alongside sugar, salt and saturated fat. These are important food components to regulate, considering the noncommunicable disease and obesity crisis in South Africa. </p>
<p>In addition, the limitations and prohibitions on when nutrition and health claims can be made are beneficial. In particular, section 50 states that products required to have a warning label may not include any health claims. </p>
<p>Another noteworthy inclusion is the fact that exceptions have been made for small-scale producers. This removes a potential barrier to South Africa’s informal food economy and small and micro food businesses. </p>
<h2>What’s missing</h2>
<p>There are a few areas of the regulations that could potentially be strengthened.</p>
<p>To give effect to the purpose of the marketing restrictions, the regulations should define advertising or advertisements. We, at the SAMRC/Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science, propose looking at the law in Chile. It defines advertising to include all forms of promotion, communication, recommendation, propaganda, information or action aimed at promoting the consumption of a certain product.</p>
<p>The section that restricts the use of competitions, tokens, gifts or collectable items which appeal to children is a great addition. This section should be clarified to ensure that in this context children are understood as persons under 18. This will align with the <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/saconstitution-web-eng.pdf">Constitution of South Africa</a> and the <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2005-038%20childrensact.pdf">Children’s Act 38 of 2005</a>. </p>
<p>The regulations should prohibit depicting children on products which carry a front-of-pack warning label. Any advertising in places where children gather, like schools and clinics, should also be prohibited. These are both restrictions suggested by the WHO to protect children from the harms of marketing.</p>
<p>To ensure that this regulation is effective, the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies and the Department of Education need to extend the protection of children from unhealthy foods and beverages as part of their mandate. This will allow for more comprehensive restrictions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209251/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sameera Mahomedy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The increased availability and consumption of unhealthy food has contributed to poor health outcomes.Sameera Mahomedy, Researcher in Law and Policy, SAMRC/Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2003362023-02-23T23:40:03Z2023-02-23T23:40:03ZClear nutrition labels can encourage healthier eating habits. Here’s how Australia’s food labelling can improve<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/511873/original/file-20230223-2314-y3xpfj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=83%2C845%2C7856%2C4452&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/VHMvdS720Hc">Unsplash/Atoms</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In your trips to the supermarket, you’ve probably come across the <a href="http://www.healthstarrating.gov.au/">Health Star Rating</a> on the front of some foods. You might even be one of the <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/Documents/Consumer%20label%20survey%202015/consumerlabelsurvey2015.pdf">70%</a> of Australians who say they read the detailed nutrition information on the back of product packaging.</p>
<p>Nutrition labelling is designed to help people make informed food purchases, and encourage shoppers to select and eat healthier options. </p>
<p>But Australia’s food labelling system is under-performing. Here’s how we can make it more effective. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-is-dragging-its-feet-on-healthy-eating-in-5-years-weve-made-woeful-progress-192393">Australia is dragging its feet on healthy eating. In 5 years we've made woeful progress</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Labels help us choose healthier options</h2>
<p>Nutrition labelling has been <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30573335/">shown</a> to lead to small but important improvements in the healthiness of what people eat. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07439156231158115">review</a> concluded that food labels tend to encourage people to consume higher amounts of healthier foods. But most food label formats aren’t very effective in stopping people from selecting unhealthy foods.</p>
<p>While the effects of food labels may be small, such changes on a large scale can lead to healthier eating habits <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21079620/">across the population</a>.</p>
<h2>Which labelling format works best?</h2>
<p><a href="https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2339cf79-2f25-11ed-975d-01aa75ed71a1">Studies</a> show people favour having front-of-pack nutrition labels in addition to the more detailed back-of-pack information.</p>
<p>People tend to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329322001665">understand</a> simpler, colour-coded labels more easily than more complex, monochrome labels. And they consistently <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765">prefer</a> “interpretive” labelling, like Australia’s Health Star Rating, that provides clear guidance on how healthy a particular product is.</p>
<p>Recent <a href="https://iris.paho.org/handle/10665.2/52740">evidence</a> indicates warning labels, such as those indicating high amounts of particular nutrients, are <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07439156231158115">likely</a> to be helpful in steering people away from unhealthy foods.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/511862/original/file-20230223-14-53qfqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/511862/original/file-20230223-14-53qfqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511862/original/file-20230223-14-53qfqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511862/original/file-20230223-14-53qfqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511862/original/file-20230223-14-53qfqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511862/original/file-20230223-14-53qfqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511862/original/file-20230223-14-53qfqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chilean warning labels indicate high levels of energy (calories), sugar, saturated fats and sodium.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tijuana-mexico-september-24-2020-processed-1821237416">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Several countries have recently introduced warning labels on unhealthy foods. In Chile, for example, it is mandatory for products to display black, octagon-shaped “stop” signs on foods that exceed limits for sugar, sodium (salt), saturated fat and energy.</p>
<p>The introduction of Chile’s warning labels, as part of a comprehensive nutrition policy suite, has led to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34390670/">improvements</a> in the healthiness of Chilean diets at the population level.</p>
<h2>How do Australia’s labelling rules stack up?</h2>
<p>Australia’s Health Star Rating system performs <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329322001665">relatively well</a> in helping people to understand the healthiness of different products.</p>
<p>And it has likely led to <a href="https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2022/08/17/bmjnph-2022-000459">some improvements</a> in product healthiness, as manufacturers have reformulated products to achieve a higher Health Star Rating.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1009617040368390147"}"></div></p>
<p>But, as a voluntary scheme, Health Star Ratings have been implemented on <a href="https://foodenvironmentdashboard.com.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/203/2021/06/HSR-Uptake-Year-5-and-6-Eligibility-reporting.pdf">less than half</a> of eligible products. This limits people’s ability to compare product healthiness across the board.</p>
<p>Perhaps as a result of the limited rollout, there’s <a href="https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2022/08/17/bmjnph-2022-000459">no compelling evidence</a> to show that the Health Star Rating system has changed what people buy. </p>
<h2>How can we make our food labelling more effective?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-nutr-111120-094932">Research</a> points to several suggestions to optimise the design of food labels in Australia.</p>
<p>First, if the Health Star Rating scheme were made mandatory, it would help people compare the healthiness of each product – not just the select few products that are labelled now. </p>
<p>This would work best if coupled with <a href="https://www.obesityevidencehub.org.au/collections/prevention/health-star-rating-system-proposed-improvements">improvements</a> to the algorithm used to calculate health stars to better align the scheme with the <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-09/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf">Australian Dietary Guidelines</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-looked-at-the-health-star-rating-of-20-000-foods-and-this-is-what-we-found-141453">We looked at the health star rating of 20,000 foods and this is what we found</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Second, the addition of colour (through the use of a spectrum linked to the product’s healthiness) to the existing Health Star Rating design would increase its visibility and is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020022000176">likely</a> to enhance the performance of the scheme. </p>
<p>One option for colour-coding would be for the healthiest rating to be green, with red for the least healthy. </p>
<p>Third, the addition of warning labels could be used to clearly show products high in risky nutrients such as sodium and sugar. </p>
<p>There is <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34838869/">emerging evidence</a> that the use of warning labels and Health Star Ratings in combination is more effective, and can discourage consumption of unhealthy products.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1627885175454711808"}"></div></p>
<p>Flipping to the back of food packaging, <a href="https://www.phaa.net.au/documents/item/5265">public health groups</a> consistently recommend including added sugar levels in the existing nutrition information panel. This is currently <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/Pages/Sugar-labelling.aspx">under consideration</a> by the food standards regulatory body. </p>
<h2>What else could we do?</h2>
<p>In considering ways to enhance the impact of food labels, it’s worth looking to other elements of package design.</p>
<p>The packaging on many unhealthy Australian products, such as sugary breakfast cereals and snack bars, currently features <a href="https://www.generationnext.com.au/2017/07/cartoon-characters-food-packaging-fuelling-australias-childhood-obesity-crisis/">cartoon characters</a> and other promotional techniques designed to appeal to children. </p>
<p>Chile banned the use of cartoon characters on food packaging alongside the implementation of warning labels. This likely contributed to the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34390670/">benefits</a> observed there. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-its-not-just-a-lack-of-control-that-makes-australians-overweight-heres-whats-driving-our-unhealthy-food-habits-162512">No, it’s not just a lack of control that makes Australians overweight. Here’s what’s driving our unhealthy food habits</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>More radical options include exploration of plain packaging for unhealthy food – similar to the packaging rules for tobacco. <a href="https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-016-0421-7">Evidence</a> from New Zealand has shown plain packaging can lower young people’s desire to buy unhealthy products such as sugary drinks. </p>
<p>Experts have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/06/obesity-sell-high-calorie-foods-in-plain-packaging-says-2017-brain-prize-winner-wolfram-schultz-peter-dayan-ray-dolan">argued</a> plain packaging would help challenge the marketing power of large food manufacturers. It would also put unhealthy foods on a level playing field with unbranded fruits and vegetables.</p>
<p>The inclusion of <a href="https://www.croakey.org/what-if-we-had-a-health-star-rating-to-protect-the-planet/">environmental sustainability labelling</a>, alongside Health Star Ratings, is likely to provide additional important information for shoppers.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Woman looks at food label" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/511871/original/file-20230223-787-2hwll9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=95%2C95%2C4817%2C3157&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/511871/original/file-20230223-787-2hwll9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511871/original/file-20230223-787-2hwll9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511871/original/file-20230223-787-2hwll9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511871/original/file-20230223-787-2hwll9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511871/original/file-20230223-787-2hwll9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/511871/original/file-20230223-787-2hwll9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Visual cues such as colour can make it easier to judge a product’s healthiness.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-june-7-2014-pregnant-woman-1714561165">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>We need a comprehensive approach</h2>
<p>While food labelling is an important tool to inform people about product healthiness, it is only likely to play a <a href="https://www.foodpolicyindex.org.au/_files/ugd/8200a1_02916eab3c5543acae33e219d10273a7.pdf">supporting role</a> in efforts to address unhealthy diets.</p>
<p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30700377/">Broader changes</a> to the way foods are produced and marketed are likely to be <a href="https://y97516.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ACE-Obesity-Report_Final.pdf">more potent</a>. These changes, such as legislation to reduce children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing and taxes on sugary drinks, can work in conjunction with food labelling regulations as part of a cohesive strategy to improve population health.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/are-home-brand-foods-healthy-if-you-read-the-label-you-may-be-pleasantly-surprised-189445">Are home-brand foods healthy? If you read the label, you may be pleasantly surprised</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200336/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Sacks receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC), National Heart Foundation of Australia and VicHealth.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jasmine Chan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia’s food labelling system is under-performing. Here’s how we can make it more effective.Gary Sacks, Professor of Public Health Policy, Deakin UniversityJasmine Chan, Associate Research Fellow, Food Policy, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1923932022-10-20T19:05:05Z2022-10-20T19:05:05ZAustralia is dragging its feet on healthy eating. In 5 years we’ve made woeful progress<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490787/original/file-20221020-24-oumd8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4673%2C2986&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/caucasian-senior-woman-pushing-trolley-supermarket-2170712659">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia is falling behind other countries in addressing the unhealthy state of our diets.</p>
<p>Several other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada and Mexico, have recently taken major steps to help improve population nutrition and prevent obesity.</p>
<p>But our <a href="https://www.foodpolicyindex.org.au/federal">latest assessment</a>, released as part of the <a href="https://www.icocongress.org/">International Congress on Obesity</a>, has found major holes in Australian government policy relative to international best practice, with limited policy progress in the past five years. </p>
<h2>What we assessed?</h2>
<p>Our assessment of the federal government included a scorecard of how Australia is going in 50 policy areas for addressing unhealthy diets. These policy areas include key influences on what we buy and what we eat, including policies that affect the price and affordability of different foods, the types of food available, how food is labelled, and the way food is promoted.</p>
<p>We worked closely with government officials to document current action in each policy area. We then assessed how existing policies compared to international benchmarks.</p>
<p>Finally, we made recommendations to address the gaps, prioritising them based on their relative importance and feasibility. Eighty-four experts from 37 organisations participated in the assessment and prioritisation process.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-its-not-just-a-lack-of-control-that-makes-australians-overweight-heres-whats-driving-our-unhealthy-food-habits-162512">No, it’s not just a lack of control that makes Australians overweight. Here’s what’s driving our unhealthy food habits</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How does Australia compare to other countries?</h2>
<p>We found implementation of globally recommended policies for improving population diets and addressing obesity in Australia falls far short of international best practice.</p>
<p>There has been only limited policy progress in Australia in the past five years.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490519/original/file-20221019-23-fgvki4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490519/original/file-20221019-23-fgvki4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490519/original/file-20221019-23-fgvki4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490519/original/file-20221019-23-fgvki4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490519/original/file-20221019-23-fgvki4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490519/original/file-20221019-23-fgvki4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490519/original/file-20221019-23-fgvki4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490519/original/file-20221019-23-fgvki4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Areas where Australia is doing well</h2>
<p>One of the only areas where Australia fared well was in the area of food labelling, where some of the regulations regarding ingredient lists, nutrition information panels and health claims was rated among the best in the world.</p>
<p>The other area that scored Australia top marks is that the GST does not apply to fresh fruit and vegetables, which helps lower their prices relative to other less healthy products.</p>
<h2>What are other countries doing better?</h2>
<p>Several other countries have implemented policies to limit the marketing of unhealthy foods and make it easier for people to choose healthier options.</p>
<p>Countries in Latin America are leading the way globally. Chile has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/health/obesity-chile-sugar-regulations.html">put in place</a> comprehensive restrictions on TV advertising for unhealthy food, conspicuous warning labels on the packaging of unhealthy products, as well as taxes on sugary drinks. Mexico has <a href="https://ncdalliance.org/why-ncds/video-stories-of-change/mexicos-junk-food-bans">similar policies</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Food warning label for Oreos" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490522/original/file-20221019-14-nci790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490522/original/file-20221019-14-nci790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490522/original/file-20221019-14-nci790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490522/original/file-20221019-14-nci790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490522/original/file-20221019-14-nci790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490522/original/file-20221019-14-nci790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490522/original/file-20221019-14-nci790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The warning labels on this product sold in Chile indicate it is high in energy (calories), sugar, saturated fats and sodium (salt).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tijuana-mexico-september-24-2020-processed-1821237416">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Elsewhere in the world, <a href="https://www.obesityevidencehub.org.au/collections/prevention/countries-that-have-implemented-taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages-ssbs">more than 50 countries</a> now have taxes on sugary drinks. There is <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003412">clear evidence</a> these taxes have decreased consumption of the taxed products, while also incentivising soft drink manufacturers to reduce the sugar content of their drinks.</p>
<p>Several other governments are taking strong action to protect children from exposure to marketing of unhealthy food. As an example, the United Kingdom is set to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-advertising-rules-to-help-tackle-childhood-obesity">ban ads</a> for unhealthy food online, and on TV before 9pm from 2024. Canada has <a href="https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-252">similar laws</a> before their parliament.</p>
<p>The UK also just introduced <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price">major changes</a> to how supermarkets operate. Laws that came into effect this month mean unhealthy products can no longer be displayed in prominent in-store locations, such as shop entrances and checkout areas.</p>
<p>In addition, the UK has proposed a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/promotions-of-unhealthy-foods-restricted-from-october-2022">ban</a> on price discounts on unhealthy food, although implementation remains <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/5fcedf1f-1b86-4896-8ed2-5c51de415f17">uncertain</a> with the recent change in government leadership.</p>
<p>Several other innovative policies are in place internationally. For example, in some parts of Mexico, retailers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/food/2020/aug/06/mexico-oaxaca-sugary-drinks-junk-food-ban-children">cannot sell</a> unhealthy food to children. And in Argentina, there are <a href="https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/salt-reduction-law-argentina-urban-food-policy-snapshot/">laws</a> dictating maximum sodium (salt) content in a range of products. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sugary-drinks-tax-is-working-now-its-time-to-target-cakes-biscuits-and-snacks-124325">Sugary drinks tax is working – now it's time to target cakes, biscuits and snacks</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How bad are Australian diets?</h2>
<p>Unhealthy diets and obesity are the <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/abds-impact-and-causes-of-illness-and-death-in-aus/summary">leading contributors</a> to poor health in Australia.</p>
<p>Less than <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/dietary-behaviour/latest-release">7%</a> of people in Australia consume a healthy diet consistent with the <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/guidelines">Australian Dietary Guidelines</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"963299218889854976"}"></div></p>
<p>Nearly <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/overweight-and-obesity">65% of Australian adults</a>, and 25% of Australian children are overweight or obese. </p>
<p>While there isn’t good data on how these statistics have changed in the past few years, things have likely got <a href="https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/one-in-three-australians-have-gained-weight-during">worse</a> since the start of the COVID pandemic.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32822-8/fulltext">Unless</a> we see comprehensive government action to improve population diets, there will be enormous <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/5/cost-overweight-and-obesity-australia">health and financial costs</a> to individuals, communities and the economy overall. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bmi-is-underestimating-obesity-in-australia-waist-circumference-needs-to-be-measured-too-89156">BMI is underestimating obesity in Australia, waist circumference needs to be measured too</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What actions should Australia take?</h2>
<p>Federal government policy action is <a href="https://www.opc.org.au/what-we-do/tipping-the-scales">needed</a> to improve population diets and address obesity. This includes:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>protecting children from exposure to the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages through comprehensive and consistent national legislation</p></li>
<li><p>implementing a health levy on sugar-sweetened beverages (a sugar tax) and other unhealthy food, while addressing the affordability of healthy food</p></li>
<li><p>improving food labelling by mandating the <a href="http://www.healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/content/home">Health Star Rating scheme</a> and requiring warning labels on products high in added sugar, sodium (salt) and/or saturated fat. </p></li>
</ul>
<h2>What’s holding us back?</h2>
<p>In the past 12 months, the former federal government released key strategies in this area, including the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-preventive-health-strategy-2021-2030">National Preventive Health Strategy (2021-2030)</a> and the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-obesity-strategy-2022-2032">National Obesity Strategy (2022-2032)</a>. But this has yet to result in any changes on the ground.</p>
<p>Critically, there is strong <a href="https://www.opc.org.au/media/media-releases/aussies-support-push-to-protect-kids-from-unhealthy-marketing.html">support</a> from the Australian community for governments to impose higher standards on marketing to support children’s health and wellbeing. More than <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01211-5">75% of Australians</a> also back warning labels on unhealthy foods.</p>
<p>It is promising to see momentum building around a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/gp-turned-mp-to-demand-action-on-junk-food-advertising-20220805-p5b7kh.html">legislative ban</a> on the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children.</p>
<p>But it’s now time for the federal government to catch up to the rest of the world and implement meaningful policy change to help Australians improve their diets.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192393/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Sacks receives funding from the the National Heart Foundation of Australia, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and VicHealth.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Davina Mann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unlike some other countries, junk food remains inexpensive and easily accessible in Australia and is widely marketed to kids.Gary Sacks, Associate Professor, Deakin UniversityDavina Mann, Research Fellow, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1896862022-09-18T20:15:10Z2022-09-18T20:15:10ZWhy ‘best before’ food labelling is not best for the planet or your budget<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482006/original/file-20220831-14-2yr78a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6720%2C4476&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Karolina Grabowska/Pexels</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>UK supermarkets have <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2022/08/03/which-supermarkets-are-scrapping-best-before-dates-and-why-17117556/">removed “best before” dates</a> on thousands of fresh food products in an effort to reduce food waste. </p>
<p>One of the major supermarket chains, Sainsbury’s, is replacing these labels with product messaging that says “<a href="https://www.fruitnet.com/fresh-produce-journal/sainsburys-axes-best-before-dates-on-more-fruit-and-veg/247057.article">no date helps reduce waste</a>”.</p>
<p>Apples, bananas, potatoes, cucumbers and broccoli are among the most wasted foods. Removing “best before” labels from these foods alone will reduce waste by an estimated <a href="https://wrap.org.uk/taking-action/food-drink/initiatives/food-waste-reduction-roadmap">50,000 tonnes a year</a>. </p>
<p>In Australia we produce <a href="https://www.fial.com.au/sharing-knowledge/food-waste">7.6 million tonnes of food waste every year</a> – about 300kg per person. <a href="https://workdrive.zohopublic.com.au/external/ba011474a921ef40d77287a482fc9b257083a646708e3b38b6debeea81cdf81b">About 70%</a> of what we throw out is still edible. Why aren’t we following the UK’s example?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1554859827834359814"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/scrapping-use-by-dates-could-prevent-huge-amounts-of-food-waste-heres-what-else-could-help-188085">Scrapping use-by dates could prevent huge amounts of food waste – here's what else could help</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some might worry about food safety. But two types of date labels – “best before” and “use by” – are used in Australia. “Use by” labels would still alert us to when food can no longer be regarded as safe to eat. </p>
<p>And consumers will still be able to assess the state of fresh produce for themselves.</p>
<h2>Food waste has huge impacts</h2>
<p>Food waste costs Australia <a href="https://workdrive.zohopublic.com.au/external/ba011474a921ef40d77287a482fc9b257083a646708e3b38b6debeea81cdf81b">A$36.6 billion a year</a>. </p>
<p>This waste occurs right across the supply chain, including primary production, manufacturing, distribution, retail and hospitality. However, households produce more than half of the waste, at an average cost per household of A$2,000 to $2,500 a year.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1558998918742290432"}"></div></p>
<p>In 2017, the Australian government <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/food-waste?state=tas#national-food-waste-strategy">pledged to halve food waste</a> by 2030 when it launched the <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/publications/national-food-waste-strategy">National Food Waste Strategy</a>. </p>
<p>This is a complex issue, but one simple solution could be to follow the UK and remove “best before” dates. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/want-to-reduce-your-food-waste-at-home-here-are-the-6-best-evidence-based-ways-to-do-it-168561">Want to reduce your food waste at home? Here are the 6 best evidence-based ways to do it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How will you know if food is still safe?</h2>
<p>Our labelling system is fairly straightforward, but many consumers don’t understand the difference between “best before” and “use by”. This confusion leads them to throw away tonnes of food that’s still suitable for eating. </p>
<p>In Australia, the regulatory authority <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/dates/Pages/default.aspx">Food Standards</a> provides guidance for manufacturers, retailers and consumers on using dates on product labels. These dates indicate how long food products can be sold, and kept, before they deteriorate or become unsafe to eat. </p>
<p>Food with a “best before” date can be legally sold and consumed after that date. These products should be safe, but may have lost some of their quality. </p>
<p>Products past their “use by date” are considered not safe. </p>
<p>The food supplier is responsible for placing date labels on the product. </p>
<p>Differences in packaging and date labelling can be subtle. For example, lettuce sold loose or in an open plastic sleeve does not have a “best before” date. The same lettuce packaged in a sealed bag does.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484515/original/file-20220914-13-hyzs32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484515/original/file-20220914-13-hyzs32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484515/original/file-20220914-13-hyzs32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484515/original/file-20220914-13-hyzs32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484515/original/file-20220914-13-hyzs32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484515/original/file-20220914-13-hyzs32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484515/original/file-20220914-13-hyzs32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Best before’ assessments can be highly subjective.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bread is the only fresh food that uses a different system with “baked on” or “baked for” date labels. </p>
<p>Some foods, such as canned goods and food with a shelf life of two years or more, don’t have to be labelled with “best before” dates because they usually retain their quality for many years. They are typically eaten well before they deteriorate.</p>
<p>Food producers and retailers are keen to keep the labelling status quo, because it makes it easier to <a href="https://www.vox.com/22559293/food-waste-expiration-label-best-before">manage stock</a> and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1509/jppm.14.095">encourages turnover</a>. </p>
<h2>The case for packaging</h2>
<p>Some packaging is used to separate branded products such as fruit varieties protected by <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-case-of-the-pirated-blueberries-courts-flex-new-muscle-to-protect-plant-breeders-intellectual-property-126763">plant breeders’ rights</a>, organic products and imperfect vegetable ranges. Once packaged, these products require a “best before” date.</p>
<p>Plastic packaging can greatly increase the shelf life of some vegetables. In these cases, it effectively reduces food waste. A striking example is cucumbers. Plastic wrap can extend their shelf life from a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-plastic-packaging-is-necessary-to-prevent-food-waste-and-protect-the-environment-117479">few days to two weeks</a>.</p>
<p>Vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower contain beneficial anti-cancer compounds called <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2016.00024/full">glucosinolates</a>. Plastic packaging that seals in <a href="https://www.food-safety.com/articles/1324-naturally-preserving-food-with-gases">specialty gas</a> preserves these longer. However, overcooking quickly erases this packaging benefit. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="box full of plastic-wrapped cucumbers" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484733/original/file-20220914-9158-b81xvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484733/original/file-20220914-9158-b81xvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484733/original/file-20220914-9158-b81xvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484733/original/file-20220914-9158-b81xvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484733/original/file-20220914-9158-b81xvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484733/original/file-20220914-9158-b81xvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484733/original/file-20220914-9158-b81xvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Plastic wrap greatly increases the shelf life of cucumbers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-plastic-packaging-is-necessary-to-prevent-food-waste-and-protect-the-environment-117479">Why some plastic packaging is necessary to prevent food waste and protect the environment</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Dead or alive?</h2>
<p>The chemistry of a fruit or vegetable starts changing the moment it is picked. Some types of produce, such as bananas and pears, are picked early so they ripen in the shop and at home. Other produce, such as sweet corn and peas, rapidly decline in the quality and quantity of flavours and nutrients once they’re picked. Snap freezing is an excellent way to preserve this produce. </p>
<p>Fresh fruits and vegetables are still alive. Their cells remain full of chemical reactions and enzymatic activity. </p>
<p>This is why a cut apple turns brown. It’s also why ethylene gas released from bananas and other fruits can shorten the life of their neighbours in the fruit bowl. </p>
<p>Potatoes, one of the most wasted products, are sold with “best before” dates when packaged in plastic bags. But if stored correctly in low light and in a “breathable” bag (paper or hessian), potatoes stay “alive” and edible for months. Just make sure you cut away any green parts, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-you-really-be-poisoned-by-green-or-sprouting-potatoes-63437">contain toxic solanine</a>. </p>
<p>As well as fresh produce’s own cellular activity, there is microbial activity in the form of bacteria and fungi. </p>
<p>Fortunately, we come equipped with a number of evolved chemical sensors. We can <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-avoid-food-borne-illness-a-nutritionist-explains-153185">feel, see, sniff and taste</a> the state of fruits, vegetables and other products. Trust (and train) your instincts.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/food-expiration-dates-dont-have-much-science-behind-them-a-food-safety-researcher-explains-another-way-to-know-whats-too-old-to-eat-186622">Food expiration dates don't have much science behind them – a food safety researcher explains another way to know what's too old to eat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Questions to ask yourself</h2>
<p>To reduce food waste, we need a combination of approaches, including appropriate packaging, sensible labelling and consumer awareness. </p>
<p>Ideally, the <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/pages/default.aspx">Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code</a> would be updated to reflect a more nuanced view of packaged fresh foods.</p>
<p>In the short term, consumer awareness and buying power are the best drivers of change. Ask yourself questions like: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Do I need a packaged product?</p></li>
<li><p>Does the packaging enhance shelf life?</p></li>
<li><p>Would I buy less if it wasn’t packaged?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Thinking about these questions will help us reduce the impacts of food waste.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>UK supermarket chains have dropped the use of “best before” date labels to reduce the amount of food being thrown out when it’s still perfectly edible. It’s just as big a problem in Australia.Louise Grimmer, Senior Lecturer in Retail Marketing, University of TasmaniaNathan Kilah, Senior Lecturer in Chemistry, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1894452022-09-11T20:10:20Z2022-09-11T20:10:20ZAre home-brand foods healthy? If you read the label, you may be pleasantly surprised<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481243/original/file-20220826-10486-57vwme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C2%2C1914%2C1273&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/YNaSz-E7Qss">Joshua Rawson-Harris/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The cost of groceries in Australia has sky-rocketed this year. So people may be tempted to switch to home-brand foods to save on their weekly food bill.</p>
<p>Home-brand foods are certainly cheaper. But are they healthy?</p>
<p>Here’s what we know about the nutrients they contain compared with the more expensive named brands.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-save-50-off-your-food-bill-and-still-eat-tasty-nutritious-meals-184152">How to save $50 off your food bill and still eat tasty, nutritious meals</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are home-brand foods?</h2>
<p>Home-brand foods have various names. You might hear them called supermarket own-brand foods, private label, in-house brands, store brands, or retailer brands.</p>
<p>These are foods made specifically for a supermarket (you cannot buy them at a competing store). They are advertised as low-priced alternatives to more expensive items.</p>
<p>Home-brand foods are widely available in Australia and other countries, making <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/43966481#metadata_info_tab_contents">up to 30%</a> of what you can buy at a supermarket.</p>
<p>Some people once viewed these as inferior products. But their nutrient content, and wide availability in supermarkets, may play a role in boosting population health. Some evidence <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30991733/">shows</a> home-brand foods increase availability and accessibility to more affordable food options, and contribute to improving food safety standards.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/frozen-canned-or-fermented-when-you-cant-shop-often-for-fresh-vegetables-what-are-the-best-alternatives-131678">Frozen, canned or fermented: when you can't shop often for fresh vegetables, what are the best alternatives?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why are they cheaper?</h2>
<p>Cheaper prices associated with home-brand products are possible due to lower costs associated with research and development, marketing and packaging. This means we cannot assume lower prices mean cheaper or inferior ingredients. </p>
<p>In fact, supermarkets can influence the ingredients and processing of home-brand foods by <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32517118/">benchmarking</a> against named brands.</p>
<p>Before a home-brand product is made, stores will also specify to manufacturers what it should cost to consumers. Manufacturers often choose to use the same ingredients and processes as name-brand products to reduce costs through economies of scale.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481966/original/file-20220831-16-uw9a0i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Pasta on fork" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481966/original/file-20220831-16-uw9a0i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481966/original/file-20220831-16-uw9a0i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481966/original/file-20220831-16-uw9a0i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481966/original/file-20220831-16-uw9a0i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481966/original/file-20220831-16-uw9a0i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481966/original/file-20220831-16-uw9a0i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481966/original/file-20220831-16-uw9a0i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pasta tonight? Home-brand pasta may use the same ingredients as named brands.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/-sbE6MDlEuM">Jean-claude Attipoe/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This means not having to clean or reprogram equipment between making the different products. It also means most home-brand products are very similar to branded products, aside from the packaging. </p>
<p>However, for mixed foods, such as breakfast cereals and pre-made sauces, the manufacturer may change the ingredients, such as using cheaper or fewer ingredients, to help reduce costs.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australians-talk-about-tucker-is-a-story-thatll-make-you-want-to-eat-the-bum-out-of-an-elephant-121492">How Australians talk about tucker is a story that'll make you want to eat the bum out of an elephant</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How much can I save?</h2>
<p>Home-brand products can be up to <a href="https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/everyday-shopping/supermarkets/articles/cheapest-groceries-australia">40% cheaper</a> than named brands. So yes, home-brand products can make a real difference to the total cost of groceries. </p>
<p>However, some products have bigger cost savings than others, as we show below.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-733" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/733/9ea5f27f63804f786d66738bbd9e8f1d36b6893e/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Most labels on supermarket shelves show the cost per 100g (or equivalent) for an item, which can help shoppers choose the most cost-effective option, especially useful when items are on sale.</p>
<h2>But are they healthy?</h2>
<p>For simple, unprocessed products such as milk, eggs and pasta there is virtually no difference in nutritional quality between home-brand and named brand foods. There is very little the manufacturers can do to modify ingredients to reduce costs.</p>
<p>But sometimes cheaper ingredients are used in higher concentrations in home-brand products. For example, home-brand pre-made pasta sauces may have less of the vegetable ingredients, and greater amounts of sugar, sodium (salt), and additives (such as stabilisers, colours and flavours). This may change the quality and taste.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481967/original/file-20220831-18-xgxdsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Tomato dish and pan of boiling water on gas stove" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481967/original/file-20220831-18-xgxdsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481967/original/file-20220831-18-xgxdsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481967/original/file-20220831-18-xgxdsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481967/original/file-20220831-18-xgxdsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481967/original/file-20220831-18-xgxdsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481967/original/file-20220831-18-xgxdsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481967/original/file-20220831-18-xgxdsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If you’re using pre-made pasta sauce, the quality may vary. So check the label.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/faceless-person-preparing-delicious-meatballs-with-tomato-sauce-in-kitchen-6248816/">Gary Barnes/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Very few studies have explored how home-brand products may differ in nutritional profile. </p>
<p>Overall, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2011.01511.x">serving size</a>, <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/7/8/7027">sodium</a> and other nutrients appear similar across home-brand and named brand food. But there are some differences with certain food types.</p>
<p><strong>Serving sizes</strong></p>
<p>For instance, serving sizes are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2011.01511.x">generally smaller</a> in home-brand pizza, canned legumes, grains, biscuits and ready meals. In fact, edible oil is the only type of food where serving size is greater for home-brand foods.</p>
<p><strong>Salt</strong></p>
<p>Sodium levels of home-brand breakfast cereals, cheese and bread <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2011.01511.x">are higher</a> than branded products. But sodium levels of cooking sauces, frozen potato products (such as oven-baked fries) and biscuits are lower in home-brand foods.</p>
<p><strong>Other nutrients</strong></p>
<p>For energy and fat intake, again it seems there are inconsistent differences between home-brand foods compared to branded foods. </p>
<p>How about sugar? Unfortunately, the studies didn’t look at this.</p>
<p>In fact, overall, Australian home-brand products are not consistently nutritionally different to branded products.</p>
<p><strong>Health star ratings</strong></p>
<p>On a related note, unhealthy home-brand products – such as juices, meat pies and muesli bars – are <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30304807/">more likely</a> to include a health star rating, compared to nutritious foods. This may incorrectly imply they are a healthy choice.</p>
<p>This means no matter which brand you choose, remember to <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/eatingwell/efh_food_label_example_130621.pdf">check the food label</a> to make sure you are getting the quality of food you like for the price you are comfortable with.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189445/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, RACGP Foundation, VicHealth and Queensland Health. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katelyn Barnes is an executive member of the Australasian Association of Academic Primary Care.</span></em></p>Looking to save money on your grocery bill but not sure about home-brand food? It’s actually a healthy option, with a few exceptions.Lauren Ball, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith UniversityKatelyn Barnes, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1775752022-03-09T14:32:37Z2022-03-09T14:32:37ZWhy South Africa should introduce mandatory labelling for fast foods<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447754/original/file-20220222-21-1x1vqbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nutrition-related chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases, remain a serious health issue. In the near future, these diseases are likely to become increasingly prevalent in developing countries like South Africa due to rapid and unplanned urbanisation.</p>
<p>Urbanisation is the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X17300497?via%3Dihub">main driver</a> of the obesity pandemic and associated chronic diseases. This is because urbanisation comes with unhealthy lifestyle changes, including increased consumption of ultra-processed and energy-dense foods which are generally unhealthy. A large proportion of these unhealthy foods are fast foods, which are convenient to obtain at relatively low prices but are generally high in energy, fat, salt and even sugar.</p>
<p>Nutritional labelling of fast foods has <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12364">been seen</a> as an effective way of assisting consumers to make healthier food choices. Research <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/10/2425">shows</a> that in the absence of nutritional labels, consumers tend to estimate nutrient content poorly. As a result, a host of countries have made it mandatory for fast-food outlets to provide nutritional information. Examples include the US, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan and United Arab Emirates. </p>
<p>However, African countries lag behind. None have introduced mandatory nutritional labelling of fast foods. South Africa is no exception. It has no laws or regulations requiring fast-food restaurants to provide any form of nutritional information to their consumers.</p>
<p>In our recent <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16070658.2021.2003058">study</a> we investigated two things: do South African fast-food restaurants provide nutritional information to the public? And secondly, we looked at the nutritional content of fast foods offered in South Africa.</p>
<p>We looked at the websites of 31 fast food restaurants in the country. We contacted the outlets when no information was found on their websites. Our findings showed that about 58% of the biggest South African fast-food restaurants provided nutritional information. This was mostly made accessible through the restaurants’ websites, but a few restaurants made it available only on request. </p>
<p>A third of the restaurants that provided the nutritional information were international franchises. This suggests that some of the nutritional information had been compiled in response to regulations from other countries where they also operate.</p>
<p>On the nutritional content we found that all meal combinations exceeded the total recommended energy, carbohydrates, sugar and salt content, and most also exceeded the recommended fat content. These levels are set by the <a href="https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/nnow2020-concept-document.pdf">National Department of Health</a> for individuals four years and older.</p>
<p>We concluded that the South African government should introduce regulations that mandate nutritional labelling of fast foods. This will help consumers make informed dietary choices. It is important that the nutritional labelling is easily understood by all South African.</p>
<h2>Nutritional content</h2>
<p>In our research we described the nutritional information of standard fast-food items (burgers or pizzas) and meal combinations (burger/pizza + medium fried chips + a 440 ml sugar sweetened beverage) across the fast-food restaurants. </p>
<p>Burgers and pizzas were high in protein. Some were also high in fat and salt, as indicated by percentages of the nutritional reference ranges above 30% level. </p>
<p>All meal combinations exacerbated the total energy, carbohydrates, sugar, and salt content, and mostly fat.</p>
<p>In the absence of nutritional labels, consumers tend to estimate nutrient content poorly. Consumers are often forced to rely on portion sizes and on the perception that similar food types contain similar nutrients.</p>
<p>For example, the nutritional content of similar looking food items may vary in nutrient quality due to different ingredients and preparation methods used by each restaurant. This variation highlights the importance of nutritional labelling. </p>
<h2>A traffic light labelling system</h2>
<p>It’s important that information about the nutritional makeup of fast food is available. It’s equally important that the labelling is easy to understand and recognisable by consumers. </p>
<p>One way to achieve this could be through the use of the “Traffic light labelling” system which has been adopted by countries like Australia and the <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/downloads/FoP_Nutrition_labelling_UK_guidance_November_2016.pdf">UK</a>.</p>
<p>The traffic light labelling system uses traffic light colours to indicate whether salt, sugar and fat content are high (red), medium (orange) or low (green). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447789/original/file-20220222-27-18zed1b.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="INSERT ALT TEXT HERE" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447789/original/file-20220222-27-18zed1b.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447789/original/file-20220222-27-18zed1b.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447789/original/file-20220222-27-18zed1b.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447789/original/file-20220222-27-18zed1b.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447789/original/file-20220222-27-18zed1b.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447789/original/file-20220222-27-18zed1b.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447789/original/file-20220222-27-18zed1b.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Assigned traffic light colours for the South African fast foods. (Red: High; Amber: Medium; Green: Low; Light grey: Colour could not be assigned due to missing information)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AUTHOR SUPPLIED</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the last part of the study, we used the traffic light labelling system and graphically showed that most of the standard burgers and pizzas and medium fried chips were high in fat and salt content. </p>
<p>Sugar content was relatively low in burgers, pizzas and medium fried chips. But the inclusion of a sugar-sweetened beverage in a meal combination ensured high sugar content in fast foods.</p>
<h2>What next</h2>
<p>Our findings provide evidence that consumption of fast foods may contribute disproportionally to daily nutrient intakes for energy, fat, salt and sugar. This is especially the case when eaten as meal combinations, as these often exceed the daily recommended intakes for a meal. </p>
<p>These findings are important as consumers may benefit from understanding how choosing to purchase fast food items or combination meals contribute to their dietary intake of fat, salt and sugar and overall energy intake.</p>
<p>Fast-food consumers in South Africa may be underestimating their daily nutrient intakes and making misinformed dietary choices.</p>
<p>We recommend that consumers limit their fast-food intake and avoid eating meal combinations.</p>
<p>We also recommend that government makes it mandatory for fast-food outlets to provide nutritional information so that consumers are better informed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/177575/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siphiwe Dlamini receives funding from the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Human Development at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. </span></em></p>South Africa should introduce regulations that mandate the nutritional labelling of fast foods. This will help consumers make informed dietary choices.Siphiwe Dlamini, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, SAMRC/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1750032022-01-21T13:40:41Z2022-01-21T13:40:41ZWhat is bioengineered food? An agriculture expert explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441322/original/file-20220118-21-1wa4viq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C5001%2C3249&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most U.S.-grown soybeans are genetically modified, so products containing them may be required to carry the new 'bioengineered' label.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/farmer-holds-soybean-from-the-2018-harvest-on-may-5-at-her-news-photo/1141949584">Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. Department of Agriculture <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be">defines bioengineered food</a> as food that “contains detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques that cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.” </p>
<p>If that definition sounds familiar, it is because it is essentially how <a href="https://ag.purdue.edu/GMOs/Pages/WhatareGMOs.aspx">genetically modified organisms, or GMOs</a>, are defined – common vocabulary many people use and understand. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Green seal with plant graphic and 'BIOENGINEERED' text." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As of Jan. 1, 2022, foods that are genetically modified must carry this label.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Bioengineered.png">USDA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On Jan. 1, 2022, the USDA implemented a new <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be">U.S. bioengineered food disclosure standard</a>. Shoppers are seeing labels on food products with the terms “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering” printed on a green seal with the sun shining down on cropland. </p>
<p><a href="https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/j098zb09z/00000x092/kw52k657g/acrg0621.pdf">More than 90%</a> of U.S.-grown corn, soybeans and sugar beets are genetically modified. This means that many processed foods containing high-fructose corn syrup, beet sugar or soy protein may fall under the new disclosure standard. Other whole foods on the USDA’s list of <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be/bioengineered-foods-list">bioengineered foods</a>, such as certain types of eggplant, potatoes and apples, may have to carry labels as well.</p>
<h2>Disclosure debates</h2>
<p>Food manufacturers have historically <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/food-companies-fear-even-one-state-gmo-label-law/">opposed labeling</a>. They argue that it misleads consumers into thinking that bioengineered foods are unsafe. Countless <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects">studies</a>, the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/agricultural-biotechnology">USDA</a> and the <a href="https://www.who.int/health-topics/food-genetically-modified#tab=tab_2">World Health Organization</a> have concluded that eating genetically modified foods does not pose health risks. </p>
<p>However, many consumers have demanded labels that let them know whether foods contain genetically modified material. In 2014, Vermont enacted a strict law mandating GMO food labeling. Fearing a checkerboard of state laws and regulations, food manufacturers lobbied successfully for a <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Final%20Bill%20S764%20GMO%20Discosure.pdf">federal disclosure law</a> to preempt other states from doing the same. Now, the U.S. joins <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/">64 countries</a> that require some sort of labeling.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Disclosure label in French on canned corn" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A label on corn sold in France in 1999 certifying that it does not contain genetically modified material.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/corn-and-gmo-in-france-in-october-1999-corn-gmo-free-news-photo/115158955">Alain LE BOT/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consumer and right-to-know advocates are not happy with the new federal disclosure standard. The <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6517/legal-challenge-to-usdas-deceptive-and-discriminatory-gmo-labeling-scheme-moves-forward">Center for Food Safety</a>, the lead organization representing a coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers, has filed suit against the USDA, arguing that the standard not only fails to use common language but is <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling">deceptive and discriminatory</a>. </p>
<p>According to this view, the standard is deceptive because loopholes exclude many bioengineered foods from mandatory disclosure, which critics say is inconsistent with consumer expectations. If the genetic material is undetectable or less than 5% of the finished product, no disclosure is required. As a result, many highly refined products – for example, sugar or oil made from a bioengineered crop – may be excluded from labeling requirements.</p>
<p>Bioengineered foods served in restaurants, cafeterias and transport systems, including food trucks, are also excluded. And the standard excludes meat, poultry and eggs, as well as products that list those foods as either their first ingredient or their second ingredient after water, stock or both. It takes a 43-minute USDA <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxE2FgrZPVs">webinar</a> to explain what’s in and what’s out under this new disclosure standard.</p>
<p>Advocates say the standard is discriminatory because it gives food manufacturers disclosure options that can substitute for the green bioengineered seal. They include listing a phone number to call or text for information or a QR code. But critics point out that many people in the U.S. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/">lack access to smartphones</a>, particularly those over 65 and those earning less than $30,000 annually. </p>
<p>In my view, consumers who want to avoid bioengineered foods may best be served by buying products that are certified organic, which prohibits genetically modified ingredients. Or they can search for the voluntary <a href="https://www.nongmoproject.org/">Non-GMO Project Verified</a> label, which features a butterfly. It was launched in 2010 and appears on tens of thousands of grocery items. Both labels indicate that a third-party inspector verified that the non-GMO standard has been met. </p>
<p>The new federal labeling standard came to market with little fanfare – probably because neither side in the battle over genetic modification and food sees it as a win.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175003/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Merrigan directs the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University, which receives funding from the Organic Trade Association. She is co-director of a project on inadvertent chemical contamination of organic crops funded by the US Department of Agriculture. Merrigan is a member of the Advisory Committee for the Organic Farming Research Foundation. She also is an advisor to S2G Ventures and a Venture Partner at Astanor Ventures, two agtech firms that have some organic companies in their much broader portfolios. </span></em></p>There’s a new label on many US food products – here’s what it means and who pushed to add it.Kathleen Merrigan, Executive Director, Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1703862021-11-09T14:54:54Z2021-11-09T14:54:54ZFive reasons South Africa isn’t ready for health claims on food labels<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428263/original/file-20211025-13-ilubrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Labels are not the only tool needed in the effort to prevent noncommunicable disease</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa has a high number of <a href="https://www.who.int/nmh/countries/zaf_en.pdf">deaths</a> from noncommunicable diseases, which are largely <a href="https://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2018/en/">linked</a> to diet and lifestyle. Under particular scrutiny are the so-called ultra-processed foods, such as soft drinks, potato chips, chocolate and sweetened breakfast cereals. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.13146">Evidence is mounting</a> of their role in the development of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers and chronic lung illnesses. </p>
<p>There are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-ultra-processed-foods-and-why-theyre-really-bad-for-our-health-140537">several reasons</a> why consumption of ultra-processed food is on the rise. Industrialisation of food systems, technological change and globalisation all play a role. Another <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.13126">frequently cited reason</a> is the growth of transnational food corporations in countries with inadequate policies to protect nutrition. </p>
<p>One way to help people choose healthy food might be to add health claims to the packaging of food that qualifies as healthy. Such claims could lay out health benefits in an accessible way and guide consumers’ choices towards foods with better nutritional profiles. Health claims are used in the European Union. But at the moment, South Africa only has <a href="https://www.greengazette.co.za/notices/foodstuffs-cosmetics-and-disinfectants-act-54-1972-regulations-relating-to-the-labelling-and-advertising-of-foods-amendment_20140529-GGR-37695-00429">draft legislation</a> that would permit some health claims. </p>
<p>Before we conducted our research, not much was known about what stakeholders in the food labelling landscape thought of the proposal. These include doctors, dietitians, public health practitioners, food scientists, food business owners and consumers. </p>
<p>The intention of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666321005134?casa_token=S58aLZl3794AAAAA:-Y-wtc92r40REaPN5zlWsl7rmdMnzXcpcaXr7Ma0t5akKL4bVxM4kYQxJxurV170XIfm-rMZE4I">our research</a> was to gain in-depth insight from a broad range of stakeholders about how effective health claims on labels might be in influencing consumption. We also wanted to explore how feasible it might be to execute in a developing country such as South Africa. </p>
<p>It emerged that there are still unresolved questions about the substantiation and enforcement of health claims. And there’s no apparent way to reach consumers in the informal market. These problems would limit the benefits of health claims at this point in time. </p>
<p>Labels are not the only tool needed in the effort to prevent noncommunicable disease.</p>
<h2>Main findings</h2>
<p>We conducted 49 interviews and asked participants to share their views on whether including health claims on food labels could help consumers to make healthier food choices. </p>
<p>The research yielded insights under five themes.</p>
<p><strong>Practical barriers:</strong> Literacy, legibility, language, the actual presence of a label on a product, and socio-economic circumstances could all be barriers. These factors mean a person cannot use a food label to inform their choice. South Africa has 11 official languages, but English (as used on food labels) is the home language of only <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01434632.2015.1072206">12% of the population</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Relevance:</strong> Assuming all the practical barriers were overcome, someone might still not use the label. They might lack the knowledge or motivation to make the information relevant to themselves. Or they might not read the label if they were in a hurry.</p>
<p><strong>Messaging:</strong> There are differences in how people prefer to receive messages and information. Labels typically have a dry, scientific format which doesn’t appeal to the average consumer. Most respondents suggested labels could warn them about health risks of the food or rate it on some sort of scale. </p>
<p>Some people liked the idea of health claims. To our surprise, though, many rejected the idea, saying the food industry might take advantage of health claims for commercial reasons. </p>
<p><strong>Enforcement:</strong> Moving away from the label itself, stakeholders were concerned that health claims could create a gap for unscrupulous players to take advantage of the fact that there isn’t really adequate regulatory enforcement in South Africa.</p>
<p><strong>Trust:</strong> There was also evidence of a lack of trust between the food industry and the healthcare industry. This appeared to stem from differences in responsibilities. Food manufacturers are under pressure to sell cheap food in a very unequal society and healthcare picks up the burden if people get unhealthy.</p>
<p>Finally, we found support for the idea of ambassadors for change. These would be individuals, professionals or even businesses going the extra mile to help people make better food choices and to drive compliance. In particular, retailers were keen to push for compliance with legislation on food labels. </p>
<h2>Recommendations</h2>
<p>The list of what’s needed to get South Africa healthy is a long one. But here are some key things to consider.</p>
<p>Food scientists and technologists need to design better foods. The nutritional profile of new foods could be better and existing ones can be improved. Technologies could, in future, make it possible for foods to have fewer additives and to be more affordable.</p>
<p>Labelling does not have to remain in the dark ages. It may be possible to work on the size and legibility of the information that is on the package or to use technology to overcome barriers to legibility and language. </p>
<p>Retailers need to stock and promote an increasing number of healthier choices. This will make it easier for consumers to make healthier choices, whether they read the label or not. </p>
<p>Food and health related education in schools must be engaging, relevant and practical. </p>
<p>The intersection between food and health is far more complex than can be addressed using a food label alone. All the stakeholders need to have a mature conversation about the facts (the huge burden of noncommunicable diseases) and the practicalities (how to feed a nation where millions go hungry or experience malnutrition due to poverty).</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170386/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melvi Todd receives funding from The National Research Foundation and the German Academic Exchange Service (NRF-DAAD). She has previously received funding from the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI). She is affiliated with the South African Association for Food Science and Technology (SAAFoST) as a professional member. </span></em></p>It’s not clear how health claims could be substantiated, enforced or understood, but there are other ways to encourage healthy food choices.Melvi Todd, PhD candidate (Food Science), Stellenbosch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1663822021-08-20T15:17:41Z2021-08-20T15:17:41ZFood allergy and intolerance: five common myths explained<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417089/original/file-20210819-17-10d74kr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C4%2C2709%2C1795&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/childs-hand-holding-peanuts-isolated-on-596715836">2YouStockPhoto/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Food allergies seem to be on the rise, but misconceptions abound, often getting in the way of a condition being properly diagnosed and treated. According to <a href="https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/38791/1/Why_do_people_misdiagnose_themselves.pdf">recent research</a>, up to 35% of people misdiagnose themselves (or their children) with a food intolerance or allergy then try to manage it themselves rather than seek proper medical advice. So it’s time to set the record straight on five of the most popular misconceptions that persist.</p>
<h2>1. I have symptoms after food so it must be an allergy</h2>
<p>Not necessarily. Adverse reactions to food can occur for a variety of reasons, and all fall within the umbrella term “<a href="https://www.bda.uk.com/resourceDetail/printPdf/?resource=food-allergy-food-intolerance">food hypersensitivity</a>”. This includes reactions that involve the immune system, termed <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/food-allergy/">food allergy</a>, but also a range of others that don’t – often called “<a href="https://www.bda.uk.com/resourceDetail/printPdf/?resource=food-allergy-food-intolerance">food intolerance</a>”. </p>
<p>Allergic reactions that involve the antibody <a href="https://www.hopkinsallchildrens.org/Patients-Families/Health-Library/HealthDocNew/Definition-Immunoglobulin-(IgE)">Immunoglobulin E</a> are often referred to as IgE-mediated (IgE) allergies and are estimated to affect up to <a href="https://www.allergyuk.org/assets/000/001/369/Stats_for_Website_original.pdf?1505209830">10% of the UK population</a>. These cause <a href="https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/nutritional/food-allergy#symptoms-of-a-food-allergy">symptoms</a> that range from mild, such as itchy eyes, to severe, such as anaphylaxis – a serious, swift allergic reaction that can cause severe throat or tongue swelling, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure and ultimately death. These symptoms usually occur rapidly after eating the food in question and when severe, require immediate medical attention. </p>
<p>Other reactions that involve the immune system (called non-IgE mediated allergy) may cause <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/food-allergy/symptoms/">symptoms</a> that are either immediate or slower onset and more chronic in nature – such as red, itchy skin, heartburn or loose stools. Some of these may be similar to <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/food-intolerance/">symptoms</a> caused by food intolerances. While totally excluding the trigger food is usually required in IgE allergy, restricting it may be sufficient in other forms of hypersensitivity, but this will depend on the underlying cause.</p>
<h2>2. I can just go online and get an allergy test</h2>
<p>A trip to the chemist or a browse online for a diagnosis is likely to provide you with a bill and a long list of foods that are apparently causing your symptoms. Many of the <a href="https://www.bda.uk.com/resourceDetail/printPdf/?resource=food-allergy-intolerance-testing">tests</a> offered are not evidence-based for food allergy or food intolerance. These can lead to unwarranted self-imposed dietary restrictions that not only increase the risk of nutritional deficiency, but can cause anxiety, have a detrimental effect on your social life by making eating out tricky, and ultimately affect your quality of life.</p>
<p>The only <a href="https://www.bda.uk.com/resourceDetail/printPdf/?resource=food-allergy-intolerance-testing">evidence-based allergy testing</a> currently available is for IgE (immediate reaction) allergy. These are skin-prick tests and specific IgE blood tests. However, even if IgE testing is offered, the results require careful interpretation as a positive test does not necessarily mean allergy. An “oral food challenge”, where precise and increasing doses of the suspect food are given, is considered the best method of diagnosis for food allergy, but these must be performed with medical supervision. </p>
<p>Diagnosis starts with a thorough, allergy-focused history that will point towards appropriate testing if required. This needs to be undertaken by a medical professional with experience in allergy. So if you are concerned about your symptoms, talk to your GP.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KEcXoQInysI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>3. I need to avoid lots of foods to help control my eczema</h2>
<p>This is unlikely. Food does not cause eczema and there are many <a href="https://eczema.org/information-and-advice/triggers-for-eczema/">environmental triggers</a> implicated in flare-ups, making it difficult to ascertain if cutting out specific foods is actually helping. You don’t need to look far to find books and websites that suggest a variety of implicated foods, but for most people, appropriate <a href="https://www.nhsinform.scot/search?q=eczema&locpt=&ds=&tab=inform">medical treatment</a> is the key to controlling the condition.</p>
<p>That said, some people with <a href="https://patient.info/skin-conditions/atopic-eczema">atopic eczema</a> may need to avoid certain foods due to fast onset and potentially severe IgE food allergy. Additionally, excluding specific foods may be beneficial for some and may involve non-IgE food allergy. However, this needs careful assessment so if you feel your current treatment for eczema isn’t keeping it under control, speak to your doctor before making any dietary changes. </p>
<h2>4. ‘May contain’ warnings are there to protect manufacturers</h2>
<p>Allergen food labelling has improved in recent years with the implementation of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1169/contents">2014 EU legislation</a> which continues to be relevant in the UK as <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/business-and-industry/safety-and-regulation/labelling">Scotland</a> and the <a href="https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/food-allergy-and-intolerance#allergen-information-and-labelling">other nations</a> update and improve it in this post-Brexit era.</p>
<p>However, it has limitations. In fact, “precautionary allergen labelling” (trace warnings) is not specifically regulated under the legislation beyond the requirement that voluntary information must not mislead the consumer, be ambiguous or confusing. The wording of warnings is not standardised and crucially, doesn’t give an indication of the level of risk.</p>
<p>So it’s perhaps unsurprising that this kind of warning is regarded with suspicion by some while being a cause of angst for others, particularly those with potentially severe IgE allergy where even very small amounts of a specific food may cause immediate symptoms. The safest and for some, necessary, approach is to avoid all products with these warnings. In the end how this is managed is down to personal choice; but understanding what is and isn’t required on food labelling is essential to making a fully informed decision about managing what you eat and foods to avoid.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-allergies-and-why-are-we-getting-more-of-them-40318">What are allergies and why are we getting more of them?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>5. Food allergy: you just need to avoid the trigger food</h2>
<p>Many people following restricted diets would disagree. Not only is there potential nutritional risk, excluding certain foods requires careful planning and constant vigilance. For those with fast onset IgE allergy in particular, where accidental exposure to the trigger food may cause severe symptoms, this can result in considerable anxiety.</p>
<p>In fact, there is evidence that having potentially severe food allergy has a detrimental effect on <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-psychologists-can-help-people-coping-with-life-threatening-food-allergies-127933">quality of life</a> in terms of health. So proper advice and appropriate management is a must.</p>
<p>With an abundance of information available thanks mainly to online sources, it is more important than ever to make sure you use credible, reliable sources and seek proper medical advice and treatment if you are concerned about food-related symptoms.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166382/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marian Cunningham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Up to 35% of people misdiagnose themselves (or their children) with a food intolerance or allergy. It’s time to set the record straight.Marian Cunningham, Lecturer in Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1575002021-06-22T12:15:19Z2021-06-22T12:15:19Z‘Upcycling’ promises to turn food waste into your next meal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406853/original/file-20210616-3862-1noqhnb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New processed food products might contain what would otherwise be waste from other foods.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/production-line-workers-collecting-freshly-baked-royalty-free-image/1156227880">GCShutter/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How would you like to dig into a “recycled” snack? Or take a swig of juice with “reprocessed” ingredients made from other food byproducts? Without the right marketing, these don’t sound like the most appetizing options.</p>
<p>Enter “upcycling.” That’s the relatively recent term for the age-old concept of using low-valued foods or food processing byproducts to generate new food products. Time-honored examples of this concept include sausages made from meat scraps and jams or jellies made from overripe fruit. In many cases, this waste would have otherwise been used as animal feed or sent to the compost pile.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406160/original/file-20210614-17-1i9qfcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Upcycled certification logo" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406160/original/file-20210614-17-1i9qfcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406160/original/file-20210614-17-1i9qfcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406160/original/file-20210614-17-1i9qfcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406160/original/file-20210614-17-1i9qfcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406160/original/file-20210614-17-1i9qfcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406160/original/file-20210614-17-1i9qfcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406160/original/file-20210614-17-1i9qfcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A certification program may soon label products you’ll see at your local store.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.upcycledfood.org/certification">Upcycled Food Association</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Upcycled Food Association <a href="https://www.upcycledfood.org/upcycled-food">defines upcycled foods as those that</a> “use ingredients that otherwise would not have gone to human consumption, are procured and produced using verifiable supply chains, and have a positive impact on the environment.” An official definition may allow manufacturers to market to a target audience and encourage consumers and food processors to consider upcycled products. The Association launched a new Upcycled Certification Standard in 2021. Soon enough you may notice an upcycled label on items at the grocery store.</p>
<p>Food waste is a monumental problem, and this nascent trend, with a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1689">buzzy new name designed to appeal to consumers</a>, could help. As <a href="https://biopec.okstate.edu/index2c2b.html?page_id=350">an economist</a> and <a href="https://biopec.okstate.edu/indexfc23.html?page_id=352">a food engineer</a>, we’ve worked with food companies to minimize waste and find markets for underutilized or otherwise trashed food items. Here’s how upcycling works.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406855/original/file-20210616-13-1wy2zlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="workers harvest lettuce in a field" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406855/original/file-20210616-13-1wy2zlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406855/original/file-20210616-13-1wy2zlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406855/original/file-20210616-13-1wy2zlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406855/original/file-20210616-13-1wy2zlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406855/original/file-20210616-13-1wy2zlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406855/original/file-20210616-13-1wy2zlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406855/original/file-20210616-13-1wy2zlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More than 40% of some fragile crops end up wasted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/mexican-farm-workers-harvest-lettuce-in-a-field-outside-of-news-photo/633226054">Sandy Huffaker/AFP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Massive amounts of food get wasted</h2>
<p>Globally, more than one-third of all current food production <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/books/saving-food/charis/978-0-12-815357-4">will be lost or wasted</a> somewhere between the farm or ranch and the consumer’s garbage can. Food “losses” may be due to improper handling or storage conditions on the farm or in the food distribution process, whereas food “waste” often results from limited retail shelf life or consumers simply not making use of perishable products before they spoil in the fridge.</p>
<p>Worldwide annual loss estimates for highly perishable crops, such as fruits and vegetables, <a href="http://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/1242090/">exceed 20%</a>, with certain leafy greens and tropical fruits exceeding 40%. In the U.S. alone, estimates of food loss and waste in recent years have ranged from US$200 billion to $300 billion. <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/coher_e/sdgs_e/sdgs_e.htm">Both the World Trade Organization</a> and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization have increased emphasis on preventing food insecurity by minimizing food loss and food waste.</p>
<p>In addition to the financial impact, food waste also contributes to environmental problems. The FAO estimates that about <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/FWF_and_climate_change.pdf">8% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions</a> can be traced to the carbon footprint of food loss and waste. Landfills generate greenhouse gas emissions, and recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates indicate food waste is the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/epafoodwaste_factsheet_dec2019-2.pdf">single largest contributor to landfill volume</a>, making up more than a fifth of what ends up at the dump.</p>
<p>In addition, when food is wasted, all of the natural resources used to produce the food, including water, energy and land resources, are wasted.</p>
<h2>Peels, shells and past-their-prime ingredients</h2>
<p>From an economics standpoint, finding market outlets for otherwise wasted products makes sense, and the food industry recognizes that fact. Much of what’s left over as waste once a food is processed contains valuable nutritional components, even though it’s currently only used for animal feed or just thrown away. Fortunately, current laws require animal feed to be treated the same as human food, so many waste streams are already handled using sanitary practices and are safe for human consumption.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406856/original/file-20210616-3862-a94l38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="hand spoons cereal from a packet into bowl" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406856/original/file-20210616-3862-a94l38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406856/original/file-20210616-3862-a94l38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406856/original/file-20210616-3862-a94l38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406856/original/file-20210616-3862-a94l38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406856/original/file-20210616-3862-a94l38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406856/original/file-20210616-3862-a94l38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406856/original/file-20210616-3862-a94l38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Snack bars and breakfast cereals can incorporate upcycled ingredients.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-prepares-granules-for-breakfast-royalty-free-image/1190227180">Milan Markovic/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A number of economically viable upcycled products are currently on the market. Fruit pomace – all the fibrous bits left after fruit juice production – bolsters the flavor and nutritional content of snack foods. Wheat middlings – everything left after milling that’s not flour – are added to breakfast cereals to increase the content of vitamins, minerals and fiber. Whey protein from cheese production increases the protein content of health bars and protein shakes.</p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-corona-important">The Conversation’s most important coronavirus headlines, weekly in a science newsletter</a></em>]</p>
<p>There’s flour made from the pulp byproducts of soybean and almond milk production, which is sold as <a href="https://www.renewalmill.com">baking mixes or upcycled flours</a>. There’s craft beer that uses surplus <a href="https://citizen.co.nz">unsold bread as the fermentation substrate</a>. One group <a href="https://badappleproduce.com">collects and distributes second-tier produce</a> before it goes bad. Other examples include pecan shell flour, dried vegetable peels as soup ingredients, and powders made from waste fruits and vegetables that can be added to beverages and snack bars.</p>
<p>With our colleagues here at the <a href="https://food.okstate.edu">Robert M. Kerr Food and Agricultural Products Center</a> at Oklahoma State, we’ve had the opportunity to work on a number of products that would be considered upcycled foods.</p>
<p>Ideas for new upcycled products come from researchers within our facility who identify a waste stream with untapped potential, or they originate with an entrepreneur who has a product idea. Either way, interdisciplinary teams here brainstorm ideas, create experimental prototypes and eventually conduct sensory evaluations – addressing the look, taste, aroma or texture of a potential new product.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406290/original/file-20210614-65156-n24fk2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a row of seated people from the back" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406290/original/file-20210614-65156-n24fk2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406290/original/file-20210614-65156-n24fk2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406290/original/file-20210614-65156-n24fk2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406290/original/file-20210614-65156-n24fk2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406290/original/file-20210614-65156-n24fk2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406290/original/file-20210614-65156-n24fk2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406290/original/file-20210614-65156-n24fk2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Volunteers come in to perform sensory evaluations of the possible new product – how does it look, taste, smell and feel?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">FAPC Communication Services</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One recent example is the creation of a new snack chip from brewer’s spent grain, the solid waste generated in the beer-brewing industry. Another current project is the creation of Kpomo. Also known as Ponmo or Kanda in Nigeria, where it’s traditionally popular, this food is made from beef hide that’s been cleaned and precooked.</p>
<p>With any food product, consumer acceptance depends largely on taste, convenience and price. Moving forward, food processors will still need new products made from waste resources to make economic sense. But research has shown that the term “upcycled” as a proxy for environmental sustainability on a food label <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1844">resonates with both millennials and baby boomers</a> and can make them more likely to buy these products. Foods labeled “upcycled” <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052624">await your shopping dollars</a> now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157500/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodney Holcomb receives funding from USDA to examine local food production and marketing. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danielle Bellmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The cost of food that gets trashed anywhere between the farm and your plate is hundreds of billions of dollars a year in just the US. But a lot can be salvaged as ingredients for other food products.Rodney Holcomb, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State UniversityDanielle Bellmer, Professor of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1432292020-07-27T20:32:35Z2020-07-27T20:32:35ZThe coronavirus pandemic requires us to understand food’s murky supply chains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349202/original/file-20200723-37-1qeqgj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4628%2C3240&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do you know where your coffee comes from? The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of knowing about our supply chains. Here, a woman carries harvested coffee beans in a coffee plantation in Mount Gorongosa, Mozambique, in August 2019. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Six months ago, you may not have thought much about where your groceries were produced. But chances are you’re thinking about it now. </p>
<p>The COVID-19 crisis has put food supply chains under <a href="http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/food-supply-chains-and-covid-19-impacts-and-policy-lessons-71b57aea/">incredible stress</a>, and stories on shortages of everything <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/17/perspectives/coronavirus-meat-shortages-mcdonalds/index.html">from meat</a> to <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/why-theres-no-flour-during-coronavirus/611527/">baking ingredients</a> have been plentiful. </p>
<p>But even with the increased recent attention, most supply chains remain murky. Consumers can play a key role in lifting that cloud.</p>
<p>Supply chain transparency has sporadically received widespread attention before. In the 1990s, Nike was famously the target of global consumer boycotts due to concerns about <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/08/business/nike-shoe-plant-in-vietnam-is-called-unsafe-for-workers.html">working conditions</a> in its manufacturing plants. </p>
<p>This <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2012/jul/06/activism-nike">consumer activism</a> forced the company to make <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5">major changes</a>, such as establishing minimum working ages, conducting regular factory audits and <a href="http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/">publishing where</a> Nike products are made. </p>
<p>Despite progress, calls for consumer action on dangerous working conditions <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-dangerous-working-conditions-starts-with-informed-consumers-126427">in supply chains for a range of products continue</a>.</p>
<h2>An array of claims to decipher</h2>
<p>The COVID-19 crisis highlights the prospect of greater consumer engagement in the food supply chain. Browsing the shelves at your grocery store, you may come across a bewildering array of claims related to a product’s characteristics or origins. </p>
<p>There are, for example, <a href="http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=category,food">nearly 150 different eco-labels</a> on food that certify claims about a product’s environmental and social characteristics. Seafood, beef, coffee and bananas are just some of the many products <a href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2015-0037/full/html">covered by eco-labels</a>.</p>
<p>Many claims of where products come from or other characteristics, however, rest on <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-technology-will-help-fight-food-fraud-85783">weak foundations</a>. But consumers can push companies for continued innovation to illuminate the invisible parts of the supply chain and strengthen the credibility, transparency and veracity of their claims. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/supply-chain-innovation-can-reduce-coronavirus-food-shortages-138386">Supply chain innovation can reduce coronavirus food shortages</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In many cases, this can be done with existing technology. Blockchain, <a href="http://www.cardnochemrisk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=730&Itemid=162">chemical footprinting</a> and drones are becoming more reliable as they become cheaper. They are also increasingly being used in supply chain auditing and eco-labelling, and there’s scope to do much more.</p>
<p>Consider the example of the <a href="https://www.msc.org/home">Marine Stewardship Council</a> that provides fishery and seafood traceability certification programs. The council’s eco-label is “only applied to wild fish or seafood from fisheries that have been certified to (the MSC’s) standard.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man tosses a fishing net into a body of water with the sun rising in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349208/original/file-20200723-25-hmuz7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349208/original/file-20200723-25-hmuz7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349208/original/file-20200723-25-hmuz7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349208/original/file-20200723-25-hmuz7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349208/original/file-20200723-25-hmuz7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349208/original/file-20200723-25-hmuz7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349208/original/file-20200723-25-hmuz7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A man casts a fishing net onto a flooded land following rain to catch fish on the outskirts of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in June 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Heng Sinith)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It uses state-of-the-art <a href="https://www.msc.org/what-we-are-doing/our-collective-impact/traceable-seafood-supply-chains">DNA testing</a> to ensure the traceability of certified seafood, resulting in mislabelling rates of under one per cent, an impressive statistic since mislabelling of seafood <a href="http://ocean-to-plate-stories.msc.org/?_ga=2.190722223.561613621.1595210084-1310831894.1595210084">can average</a> 30 per cent.</p>
<p>DNA testing is not applicable to all foods, but it is rarely used despite its potential in improving supply chain integrity.</p>
<h2>In-person audits are ineffective</h2>
<p>Most supply chain certifications draw only sparingly on the latest technologies. Instead, they <a href="https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource/2019-02/ISEAL%20Smart%20Data%20Technology%20Innovations%20Report_public%20Oct15.pdf">rely heavily on in-person audits</a>, which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jan/14/supply-chain-audits-failing-detect-abuses-report">can be ineffective</a>. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120773">recent research</a> has shown that technology-enhanced auditing can improve the timeliness and veracity of audit data collection and analysis, which can in turn strengthen the credibility of supply chain certifications advertised to consumers. In another study, we’ve further found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114740">the COVID-19 crisis can help accelerate the use of technology in supply chain audits</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349238/original/file-20200723-27-19f58xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Several bananas with slightly freckled skins" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349238/original/file-20200723-27-19f58xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349238/original/file-20200723-27-19f58xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349238/original/file-20200723-27-19f58xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349238/original/file-20200723-27-19f58xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349238/original/file-20200723-27-19f58xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349238/original/file-20200723-27-19f58xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349238/original/file-20200723-27-19f58xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are these bananas environmentally friendly? Technology can help consumers decide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Pixabay)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Technology can also increase <a href="https://hbr.org/2020/03/coronavirus-is-proving-that-we-need-more-resilient-supply-chains">the resilience</a> of supply chains, so they are better able to respond to shocks like a global pandemic. </p>
<p>For example, technologies such as sensors, satellite imaging and cloud computing can improve visibility deep into the supply chain and improve co-ordination between suppliers and buyers. Real-time supplier monitoring can provide early warnings of potential problems such as working conditions, inventory shortages or production breakdowns. </p>
<p>These technologies cannot, of course, eliminate the possibility of future shortages, but they can make supply chains less likely to break.</p>
<p>Consumers can play a more active role in driving improvements throughout supply chains. Purchasing decisions are one key lever. </p>
<h2>Consumer engagement is key</h2>
<p>For example, consumers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1193634">have indicated</a> a willingness to pay a premium for products made under good working conditions, but the lack of trustworthy information on those conditions is a barrier. Consumers can also actively push for the sharing of more and better quality information to reduce mislabelling and other undesirable activities, such as the trade of endangered species.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A person's arm reaches for a package of greens from a selction of greens and lettuces in a grocery story." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349235/original/file-20200723-29-4sv18a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349235/original/file-20200723-29-4sv18a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349235/original/file-20200723-29-4sv18a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349235/original/file-20200723-29-4sv18a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349235/original/file-20200723-29-4sv18a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349235/original/file-20200723-29-4sv18a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349235/original/file-20200723-29-4sv18a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Consumers can push for better quality food labelling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Piqsels)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Going further, consumers can get more directly involved in supply chain monitoring. For example, in addition to satellite imaging, <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/">Global Forest Watch</a> has used crowd-sourcing to monitor forest change. Unilever, which makes dozens of products you’ll find at your local grocery store, has used Global Forest Watch to <a href="https://blog.globalforestwatch.org/commodities/building-a-partnership-to-advance-sustainability-unilever-and-global-forest-watch-commodities/">better understand deforestation in its supply chain</a>. </p>
<h2>Portable technologies on the rise</h2>
<p>And in the near future, consumers might even be able to validate the content of food labels by using simple portable technologies. No matter how they engage, consumers need to take a more active role in promoting and demanding greater supply chain transparency.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dna-barcodes-sci-fi-tech-to-safeguard-environment-79391">DNA barcodes — sci-fi tech to safeguard environment</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The pandemic has more people thinking about supply chains than ever before. </p>
<p>This increased awareness presents a chance for consumers to become more engaged in where and how products they buy are produced. </p>
<p>Consumers need to push for more transparency and higher veracity information on where products come from, but they also need to take greater responsibility for what they buy and to participate wherever they can in supply chain monitoring.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143229/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cory Searcy receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pavel Castka does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The COVID-19 crisis highlights the importance of supply chains. But even with the increased recent attention, most supply chains remain murky. Consumers can play a key role in lifting that cloud.Cory Searcy, Professor & Vice-Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies, Toronto Metropolitan UniversityPavel Castka, Professor in Operations Management and Sustainability, University of CanterburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1301862020-01-20T17:29:32Z2020-01-20T17:29:32ZFish, sausage, even honey: Food fraud is hidden in plain sight<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310958/original/file-20200120-69539-du7j9o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3600%2C2435&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A seafood counter is shown at a store in Toronto in 2018. A study that year found 61 per cent of seafood products tested at Montréal grocery stores and restaurants were mislabelled. Fish is a common victim of food fraud.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The globalization of the food chain has resulted in increased complexity and diminished transparency and trust into how and where our foods are grown, harvested, processed and by whom. </p>
<p>Furthermore, recurring incidents of <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/4014182/food-fraud-avoiding-fake-product/">food fraud</a> remind us that some of those involved in the food chain are exploiting this complexity. Today, consumers are at an <a href="https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/02/20/Fragmented-global-supply-chains-have-led-to-an-increase-in-food-fraud">increased risk</a> of buying lower-quality food than what they paid for, or worse, eating food with unsafe ingredients or undeclared allergens. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310948/original/file-20200120-69535-njt0hx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310948/original/file-20200120-69535-njt0hx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310948/original/file-20200120-69535-njt0hx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310948/original/file-20200120-69535-njt0hx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310948/original/file-20200120-69535-njt0hx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310948/original/file-20200120-69535-njt0hx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310948/original/file-20200120-69535-njt0hx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310948/original/file-20200120-69535-njt0hx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The milkman used to deliver locally sourced milk to your doorstep.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Historically, food chain transparency and trust was established between the shopper and the farmer or fishmonger, green grocer, butcher, milkman and baker. Dutch scholar <a href="https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/governing-chinas-food-quality-through-transparency-a-review">Arthur Mol</a> argued that this personal interaction enabled face-to-face transparency, which built trust. </p>
<p>Before modern supermarkets, a local village or town grocery store stocked up to 300 items grown or processed within a 240-kilometre (150-mile) radius. In comparison, our post-modern supermarkets carry an <a href="https://www.fmi.org/our-research/supermarket-facts">average of 33,000</a> items that travel 2,400 kilometres or more. The Canadian government is poised to tackle that problem by announcing <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/6435463/buy-canadian-promotional-campaign/">a Buy Canadian food campaign.</a></p>
<p>While the extent of global food fraud is difficult to quantify, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) suggests <a href="https://inspection.gc.ca/food-safety-for-industry/information-for-consumers/food-safety-system/food-fraud/eng/1548444446366/1548444516192">food fraud</a> affects 10 per cent of commercially sold food. Various academic and industry sources suggest that globally, food fraud ranges from US$10 billion to $49 billion. This is likely a conservative range considering estimates of <a href="https://www.afr.com/life-and-luxury/food-and-wine/cracking-down-on-fake-steak-with-invisible-trackable-barcodes-20180810-h13t3n">fake Australian meats</a> alone and sold worldwide are as high as AUD$4 billion, or more than US$2.5 billion.</p>
<p>If you add the sales of fake wines and alcohol, adulterated honey and spices, mislabelled fish and false claims of organic products, wild-caught fish or grain-fed meat, the numbers, and risks, increase significantly.</p>
<h2>Are Canadian regulations adequate?</h2>
<p>Regulations are in place to protect Canadians. The Safe Food for Canadians Act (known <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2018-108/index.html">as the SFCR</a>) and the <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-2.html#h-234067">Food and Drug Act</a> work together to protect Canadian consumers from food safety and food fraud risks.</p>
<p>The SFCR states that food businesses must have preventative controls in place as well as product traceability records to ensure imported products meet Canadian laws. A provision of the Food and Drug Act states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“No person shall sell an article of food that (a) has in or on it any poisonous or harmful substance; (b) is unfit for human consumption; (c) consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance; (d) is adulterated; or (e) was manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged or stored under unsanitary conditions.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another section of the act declares: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But are the regulations being enforced? </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310949/original/file-20200120-69559-m7w9a4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310949/original/file-20200120-69559-m7w9a4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310949/original/file-20200120-69559-m7w9a4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310949/original/file-20200120-69559-m7w9a4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310949/original/file-20200120-69559-m7w9a4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310949/original/file-20200120-69559-m7w9a4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310949/original/file-20200120-69559-m7w9a4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310949/original/file-20200120-69559-m7w9a4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is the honey you enjoy on your toast every morning cut with cheaper corn syrup?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pixabay</span>, <a class="license" href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en">FAL</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The CFIA is very active in food fraud prevention and detection. In July 2019, the agency received $24.4 million in new <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/food-inspection-agency/news/2019/07/government-of-canada-prevents-nearly-12800kg-of-adulterated-honey-from-entering-the-canadian-market.html">food fraud funding</a> after announcing that 12,800 kilograms of adulterated honey was blocked from entering the Canadian market. Honey adulteration is the process of cutting pure honey with fillers and cheaper sweeteners, including corn syrup.</p>
<p>The CFIA has several enforcement instruments it can apply to offenders including <a href="https://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/accountability/compliance-and-enforcement/amps/fact-sheet/eng/1547233099837/1547233100149">administrative monetary penalties</a>, <a href="https://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/accountability/compliance-and-enforcement/licences/eng/1324052022644/1324052753628">licence suspension or cancellation</a> and <a href="https://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/newsroom/prosecution-bulletins/eng/1298575869119/1299852705293">criminal prosecution</a>. </p>
<h2>Is food fraud the same as consumer fraud?</h2>
<p>No. Canada is recovering from a significant consumer fraud incident where some of the most trusted brands colluded for more than a decade to fix the price of bread in what’s <a href="https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/04335.html">often termed breadgate</a>. This was a breach of the <a href="https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/04267.html">Canadian Competition Act</a>. </p>
<p>Canada was one of the first countries in the world with a formal Competition Act, initiated in 1889. While breadgate’s egregious breach of trust shocked Canadians, consumers are known to have short memories and to quickly forgive. </p>
<p>The protection of insiders acting as whistle-blowers in the food industry is critically important to expose both consumer fraud and food fraud. However, most food fraud detection requires the use of advanced high-tech methods. </p>
<p>In 2017, the University of Guelph’s Biodiversity Institute, in partnership with the CFIA, received $320,000 in <a href="https://news.uoguelph.ca/2017/09/u-g-cfia-collaboration-gets-320000-investment/">federal funding</a> to develop better genomics and DNA bar-coding tools, including portable devices. DNA bar-coding allows researchers to match animal and plant DNA against a reference database to identify a species. </p>
<h2>Mislabelled fish, sausage</h2>
<p>The partnership has published a number of research papers uncovering food fraud and <a href="https://news.uoguelph.ca/2019/02/persistent-seafood-mislabeling-persistent-throughout-canadas-supply-chain-u-of-g-study-reveals/">revealing the mislabelling of fish</a> species in Canadian restaurants and grocery stores, an area of the institute’s research that now spans more than a decade. </p>
<p>In January 2019, the institute <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996919300304?via%3Dihub">published a paper</a> entitled “Re-visiting the occurrence of undeclared species in sausage products sold in Canada” as a followup to a previous study that showed a <a href="https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/guelph/20-of-tested-sausages-contained-mislabeled-meat-u-of-g-study-1.3532113">20 per cent mislabelling rate for sausages</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310955/original/file-20200120-69539-idjg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310955/original/file-20200120-69539-idjg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310955/original/file-20200120-69539-idjg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310955/original/file-20200120-69539-idjg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310955/original/file-20200120-69539-idjg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310955/original/file-20200120-69539-idjg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310955/original/file-20200120-69539-idjg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310955/original/file-20200120-69539-idjg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The original study found that 20 per cent of sausages sampled from grocery stores across Canada contained meats that weren’t on the label.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP Photo/Tom Lynn</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The followup indicated 14 per cent of the 100 sausages tested still contained meat DNA that was undeclared on the label. Even more concerning for the public is that many types of food fraud and mislabelling have gone undetected. New technology and methods of testing still has to catch up. </p>
<p>As social media amplifies recurring high-profile incidents of food fraud, trust in our global food supply chains remains a concern. For the foreseeable future, much of Canada’s food fraud remains hidden in plain sight, sitting right there on our grocery store shelves. </p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130186/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John G. Keogh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trust in our global food supply chains remains a concern. For the foreseeable future, much of Canada’s food fraud remains hidden in plain sight, sitting right there on our grocery store shelves.John G. Keogh, Toronto-based, doctoral researcher, Food Chain / Supply Chain Transparency, Trust, Technology, Standards @ Henley Business School, University of ReadingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1273792019-12-04T11:27:46Z2019-12-04T11:27:46ZMisleading allergy labelling puts lives at risk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304700/original/file-20191202-66994-1nmphz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-woman-reading-nutrition-label-on-1031952505?src=1e2a16dc-b7c7-4c40-98e8-1ad920dfbd6f-1-23">Shutterstock/Goksi</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Failing to declare allergens on food labels is a breach of regulations and can put lives at risk. The law relating to allergen labels was changed recently to reduce the risks to consumers. But recent cases of flawed and misleading food labelling, sometimes involving major supermarkets, have called into question the effectiveness of allergen labelling laws. </p>
<p>For example, in November, Morrisons was found to be <a href="https://twitter.com/HealthJourno/status/1194638794210914304">selling Shirley biscuits</a> in packaging that failed to emphasise the allergens on the ingredients label. Alex Gazzola, a journalist from Allergy Insight, alerted Morrisons to the problem on Twitter but it took the supermarket a whole month to finally respond and withdraw the biscuits from sale.</p>
<p>Unfortunately this is not an isolated case. There a similar cases of inadequate allergy labelling on foods every month. In fact, the Food Standards Agency publishes details of <a href="https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/search/alerts">allergy alerts</a> where food retailers and manufacturers have recalled products found to have misleading allergy labels. In November there were nine such alerts. </p>
<p>These included: Waitrose <a href="https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/alert/fsa-aa-97-2019">recalling its Carrot and Coriander Soup</a> as it did not declare the fact that it contains barley and celery, Aldi <a href="https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/alert/fsa-aa-99-2019">recalling Breaded Chicken Steaks</a> due to undeclared milk and, perhaps most worrying, Mondelez recalling Cadbury Dairy Milk Little Robins because <a href="https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/alert/fsa-aa-95-2019">some products contained almonds</a> which were not mentioned on the label.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304699/original/file-20191202-67023-9eh5zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304699/original/file-20191202-67023-9eh5zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304699/original/file-20191202-67023-9eh5zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304699/original/file-20191202-67023-9eh5zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304699/original/file-20191202-67023-9eh5zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304699/original/file-20191202-67023-9eh5zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304699/original/file-20191202-67023-9eh5zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sign-saying-allergens-please-ask-allergy-1236871006?src=01a449b3-f251-49dd-9637-d27923333d95-1-3">Shutterstock/DianaVucane</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The law relating to allergy labelling is clear. Under the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32011R1169">European Food Information to Consumers Regulation</a>, where there are pre-packed foods which contain one or more of the <a href="https://allergytraining.food.gov.uk/english/rules-and-legislation/">allergens defined by law</a>, the name of the allergen must be emphasised on the label. This is commonly done by highlighting the name in bold type. But there are exceptions to this rule. For example, where the product or food doesn’t have any packaging or it does not require an ingredients list at all (alcoholic drinks with a strength of 1.2% ABV or more or dairy products with no added ingredients).</p>
<h2>Enforcement issues</h2>
<p>As with other areas of food law, the rules are evident, but my own research has found that <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201178">the weak link is enforcement</a>. In the case of Shirley biscuits, Gazzola reported the problem to Morrisons twice and then to West Yorkshire Trading Standards, the local authority where Morrisons’ head office is based. It still took a whole month for any action to be taken. This is unsurprising. Local authority trading standards departments bore the brunt of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/07/trading-standards-institute-consumers-are-no-longer-protected">cuts during the austerity years</a> that followed from the financial crisis in 2008 and they are still to recover. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-people-are-experiencing-severe-food-allergies-than-ever-before-108124">More people are experiencing severe food allergies than ever before</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In any event, Morrisons took the decision to <a href="https://twitter.com/Morrisons/status/1196347006911963136">withdraw the biscuits from sale</a> without intervention from enforcers and they may have been motivated by the risk to consumers and sensitive to the risk of bad publicity. But it is disappointing to see that in spite of this incident, there is still no allergy alert on the FSA website.</p>
<p>Of course, there are too many laws and too many products for enforcers to closely monitor but where a company is told about a problem, in the light of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/natashas-legacy-becomes-law">the potential dire consequences</a>, it’s reasonable to expect a quick and joined-up response. Instead, the case highlights the fragmented nature of enforcement.</p>
<p>Children are more likely than adults to suffer from an allergy – and the number of hospital admissions of children with anaphylactic shock has, according to the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, <a href="https://www.narf.org.uk/blog/2019/11/15/new-nhs-digital-figures-reveal-huge-rise-in-children-hospitalised-with-severe-allergic-reactions">increased by 72%</a> over the past six years.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p9Qt4o2DqiU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Natasha Ednan-Laperouse <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45623831">died in 2016 aged 15</a> when she suffered from an allergic reaction after eating a baguette purchased from Pret A Manger which contained sesame that was not declared on the label. As a result of the concerted campaign by Natasha’s parents the law relating to allergen labelling <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/natashas-legacy-becomes-law">was changed</a> to implement tighter rules for pre-packed foods for direct sale. From 2021, food that is made and packed where it is sold will be required to have a full ingredients list that emphasise those ingredients that are known allergens.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/may-contain-nuts-isnt-good-enough-we-need-a-new-approach-to-food-allergy-testing-58451">'May contain nuts' isn't good enough: we need a new approach to food allergy testing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Where foods are not pre-packed and is made onsite at a restaurant, takeaway or sandwich shop, there’s more flexibility in relation to how allergen information is provided. The food business must still provide information about the allergens but there is no requirement on businesses to provide full details of ingredients on each item. A food business can provide the information by a label on the shelf or a notice that directs consumers to make an enquiry to staff. </p>
<p>So in some cases the information can be provided orally. For example, a notice may say: “If you’re worried about allergies, speak to a member of staff”. But the use of this method means there’s no label on each individual item and – crucially – it puts the onus on the consumer to find out.</p>
<p>The family of Owen Carey, who died in 2017 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/13/allergic-teenager-who-died-was-misled-about-byron-burger-coroner-rules">while celebrating his 18th birthday</a>, has called for <a href="https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2019/September-2019/Family-call-for-Owens-Law-following-inquest-con">a change in the law</a> so that the discretion afforded to restaurants to provide allergen information orally is removed. Owen suffered from a dairy allergy and the chicken breast he had eaten had been marinated in buttermilk. This was in spite of the fact that Owen had told staff at Byron Burger about his allergy. </p>
<p>There are clearly still some very serious issues around food labelling that must be addressed. But whatever action is taken, it should not lead to retailers labelling their food with more <a href="https://theconversation.com/may-contain-nuts-isnt-good-enough-we-need-a-new-approach-to-food-allergy-testing-58451">blanket warnings</a> just to avoid claims, such as the commonly used “may contain nuts”. It is not helpful for allergy sufferers to restrict their choices and they end up not being able to eat foods that are safe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ajay Patel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are still some serious issues around food labelling that must be addressed and enforcement is one of them.Ajay Patel, Senior Lecturer in Food Law, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1237552019-10-08T18:58:14Z2019-10-08T18:58:14ZNo, serving sizes on food labels don’t tell us how much we should eat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295918/original/file-20191007-121056-1rczji9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Standard serving sizes are anything but standard.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf">Australian Guide to Healthy Eating</a> sets out how much we should eat from each of the food groups. If we eat the recommended number of “standard serves” from each food group for our age and sex, it puts us in a good position to have a healthy, balanced diet. </p>
<p>But what is a <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/how-much-do-we-need-each-day/serve-sizes">standard serve</a>? And does it match what’s on our food labels?</p>
<h2>Standard serves</h2>
<p>Despite the name, standard serves are not very standard, even in the <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf">Australian Guide to Healthy Eating</a>. Serves can be described by energy (kilojoules or kJ for short) contained in a serve, units of food such as “one medium apple”, or “one slice of bread”, by weight, or by volumes like a cup. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/food-as-medicine-why-do-we-need-to-eat-so-many-vegetables-and-what-does-a-serve-actually-look-like-76149">Food as medicine: why do we need to eat so many vegetables and what does a serve actually look like?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/how-much-do-we-need-each-day/serve-sizes">A “serve”</a> is also different between each of the food groups and even within the food groups.</p>
<p>One serve of grains is about 500kJ. That’s one English muffin but only half a bread roll. Or it could be half a cup of porridge, one-quarter of a cup of muesli, or three-quarters of a cup of wheat cereal flakes. </p>
<p>One serve of dairy is 500-600kJ, which could be one cup of milk, but is only three-quarters of a cup of yoghurt, or a half cup of ricotta cheese. Hard cheeses are defined by slices, with two slices to a serve, assuming each slice is about 20g. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295929/original/file-20191008-128705-npf3zt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295929/original/file-20191008-128705-npf3zt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295929/original/file-20191008-128705-npf3zt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295929/original/file-20191008-128705-npf3zt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295929/original/file-20191008-128705-npf3zt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295929/original/file-20191008-128705-npf3zt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295929/original/file-20191008-128705-npf3zt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295929/original/file-20191008-128705-npf3zt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia’s Guide to Healthy Eating outlines the number of serves we need each day to stay healthy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/The%20Guidelines/n55g_adult_brochure.pdf">eatforhealth.gov.au</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Serves on food labels</h2>
<p>Nearly all packaged foods in Australia have nutrition information panels. These include information meant to help us make better food choices. </p>
<p>The exact information depends on the food. But they have to at least include how much energy (kJ), protein, fat (total and saturated), carbohydrates (total and sugars) and salt (sodium) is in the product. These contents are always listed twice, per 100g (100mL for liquids) and <em>per serving</em>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295920/original/file-20191007-121060-1i5byfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295920/original/file-20191007-121060-1i5byfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295920/original/file-20191007-121060-1i5byfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295920/original/file-20191007-121060-1i5byfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295920/original/file-20191007-121060-1i5byfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295920/original/file-20191007-121060-1i5byfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295920/original/file-20191007-121060-1i5byfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The manufacturer sets the food label’s serving size.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/1480983944?size=huge_jpg">Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the serving on the label has nothing to do with the standard serves in the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. The serving size on the label is not a recommendation on how much you should eat – it is decided by the manufacturer. It’s based on how much they expect a person to typically eat, or the unit size the product is eaten in. </p>
<p>This could be <em>very</em> different to a standard serve. For example, the labelled serving size on a chocolate bar might be “one bar” – 53g of chocolate containing 1,020kJ. But the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating says a serve is <a href="https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/nhsc-guidelines%7Eaus-guide-healthy-eating">half a small bar</a> (25g) or about 600kJ, and it’s recommended we limit discretionary food (junk food) to <a href="https://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/australian-dietary-guidelines-standard-serves">one serve per day</a>.</p>
<h2>Comparing serving sizes between brand and package sizes</h2>
<p>In Australia, there are no rules about how these serving sizes are set. A serving might not be the same in similar products, or in different brands of the same product. </p>
<p>This can make products hard to compare. The serving size of a soy sauce in one brand, for example, could be one-tenth of a soy sauce made by another company. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fat-free-and-100-natural-seven-food-labelling-tricks-exposed-25143">Fat free and 100% natural: seven food labelling tricks exposed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>To add to the confusion, a serving also doesn’t necessarily reflect portion size: how much a person consumes in a meal or sitting.</p>
<p>A 250g packet of microwave white rice, for example, might be labelled as having two 125g servings. This is because the manufacturer expects it to serve two people. But one of those labelled servings is almost two standard serves of grains.</p>
<p>To make it even more confusing, in the same brand of rice, a 450g family pack could be labelled as having four serves, with each serve 112g. That’s 10% smaller than the serving size in the smaller packet. But it assumes a family of four could split the pack between them in a meal. So, in this package, one labelled serving size would be the equivalent of about 1.7 standard serves of grains. </p>
<h2>How serves on labels impact our food choices</h2>
<p>Even though labelled serving sizes are not related to standard serves or the recommended amounts that should be eaten, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315003785">research shows</a> consumers often interpret the labelled servings as being recommendations for portion size or for following dietary guidelines.</p>
<p>Studies show the listed serving size impacts how much people choose to eat. Larger serving sizes on labels can make it appear that a large serve is recommended, leading to people eating or serving themselves more. This has been shown with <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315003785">several foods</a>, including cookies, cereal, lasagne and cheese crackers. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295921/original/file-20191007-121065-r43p37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295921/original/file-20191007-121065-r43p37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295921/original/file-20191007-121065-r43p37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295921/original/file-20191007-121065-r43p37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295921/original/file-20191007-121065-r43p37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295921/original/file-20191007-121065-r43p37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295921/original/file-20191007-121065-r43p37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A larger serving size on the lasagne label might mean you’re likely to eat more of it.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/736145572?size=huge_jpg">Stockcreations/shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But for some foods, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666316300848">like lollies</a>, larger serving sizes can make them look less healthy, leading to reduced consumption or smaller portion sizes. This is likely because the large number of kilojoules stands out in the per serving data.</p>
<h2>So what should you do?</h2>
<p>Because serving sizes can vary by product and manufacturer, it’s easiest to use the per 100g or 100mL information, instead of the per serve information when comparing products. But think about the actual weight or volume you will consumer when you consider how it fits your daily intakes. </p>
<p>The recommended diet for the average adult is based on <a href="http://www.mydailyintake.net/daily-intake-levels/">eating 8,700kJ</a> of energy per day. To get this much energy from a balanced diet, that’s 50g protein, 70g fat and 310g carbohydrates. We also want to aim for 24g or less of saturated fats, and 30g or more of fibre. </p>
<p>But needs will differ by life stage, activity level, sex, your current weight and your weight goals. There are <a href="https://www.8700.com.au/kj-explained/your-ideal-figure/">online calculators</a> to estimate your requirements. </p>
<p>Memorising serving sizes and guidelines can be hard. To make it easy, you can print a copy of the <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/guidelines/australian-guide-healthy-eating">Australian Guide to Healthy Eating food groups</a> and <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/how-much-do-we-need-each-day/serve-sizes">serving sizes</a> to keep where you can see them when preparing food. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/health-check-how-to-work-out-how-much-food-you-should-eat-30894">Health Check: how to work out how much food you should eat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123755/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Beckett receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the AMP Foundation. She has consulted for Kelloggs Australia. She is a member of the Nutrition Society of Australia, the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology and the Early and Mid Career Researcher Forum Executive. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tamara Bucher has received research funding from government and non-government organisations and industry. Funding sources include the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Foundation for Nutrition Research, the European Commission, the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences, the Walter Hochstrasser Stiftung, Nestlé S.A., SafeFood UK, Goodman Fielder and Rijk Zwaan Australia. She is a member of the Nutrition Society of Australia and the International Society for Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity.</span></em></p>When a manufacturer lists a serving size on their food label, it’s based on their expectations of what you’ll eat, not what the dietary guidelines recommend.Emma Beckett, Lecturer (Food Science and Human Nutrition), School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of NewcastleTamara Bucher, Senior Researcher, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1238522019-09-23T20:09:27Z2019-09-23T20:09:27ZCrying over plant-based milk: neither science nor history favours a dairy monopoly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293115/original/file-20190919-187945-z5tln6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Botany defines milk as a kind of juice or sap, usually white in colour, found in certain plants. Plant-based liquids have been called milk for centuries.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Soy milk. Almond milk. Rice milk. To some dairy farmers these products are like a red rag to a bull. </p>
<p>They want governments to decree the word “milk” should be reserved for milk from mammals. They argue letting plant-based products be called milk is potentially misleading consumers.</p>
<p>Australia’s National Party has joined the call, passing a motion urging the federal government to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/15/nationals-back-welfare-system-expansion-and-crackdown-on-vegan-milk">ban plant-based and other alternative products</a> calling themselves milk. </p>
<p>If this were a matter of strict biological definition, they might have a very good point, but both science and history are against them.</p>
<h2>Scientific definitions</h2>
<p>Biology defines milk as the white fluid from the mammary glands of female mammals used to nourish their young. It’s this ability (lactation) that in fact defines and distinguishes mammals from other animals. Given our own status as mammals, it’s not surprising that milk also carries significant cultural meaning. </p>
<p>But biology isn’t the last scientific word. Botany defines milk as a kind of juice or sap, usually white in colour, found in certain plants. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/almonds-dont-lactate-but-thats-no-reason-to-start-calling-almond-milk-juice-121306">Almonds don't lactate, but that's no reason to start calling almond milk juice</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Calling plant-derived liquids “milk” goes back <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nut-milks-are-milk-says-almost-every-culture-across-globe-180970008/">at least a thousand years</a>. </p>
<p>Almond milk, for example, was introduced into Europe by the Moors in about the 8th century, and was popular across both the Christian and Islamic world as an alternative when religious discipline required abstaining from animal products.</p>
<p>An early form of soy milk became popular in China in about the 14th century. </p>
<p>Throughout Asia and other areas of the world where humans had higher rates of lactose intolerance, plant-based milks were the rule rather than the exception. It’s impossible to think of Thai food and many other regional cuisines without the essential component of coconut milk.</p>
<h2>Labelling standards</h2>
<p>The international food standards body, the <a href="http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/home/en/">Codex Alimentarius Commission</a>, defines <a href="http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B206-1999%252FCXS_206e.pdf">milk</a> as “the normal mammary secretion of milking animals obtained from one or more milkings without either addition to it or extraction from it, intended for consumption as liquid milk or for further processing”. </p>
<p>The Codex is a voluntary reference standard and there is no obligation to adopt its guidelines, though milk labelling regulations in Australia adhere closely to it. The <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/pages/default.aspx">Food Standards Code</a> for Australia and New Zealand assumes “milk” refers to cow’s milk. Anything else must be specifically described in terms of its source – for example, sheep’s milk, goat’s milk or almond milk.</p>
<p>One of the arguments of those wanting even greater strictures is that customers might be misled into thinking alternatives have the same protein content as cow’s milk. (The Code says regular milk must contain at least 3.0% protein and 3.2% fat. Skim milk must contain at least 3.0% protein and no more than 0.15% of fat.) Some plant-based beverages do contain less protein than dairy milk but are required to indicate on their labels that <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/nutrition/milkaltern/Pages/default.aspx">the product is not suitable as a complete milk replacement for children under 5 years old</a></p>
<p>However, the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission, which scrutinises all food products for potentially <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/misleading-claims-advertising">false, deceptive or misleading</a> claims, has never identified this as an issue of concern.</p>
<p>Another argument is that use of the word milk and other dairy-related terms should be restricted in a similar vein to the prohibitions placed on food producers using terms considered <a href="https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks/understanding-trade-marks/types-trade-marks/certification-trade-mark/geographical">geographical indicators</a>. </p>
<p>Probably the best-known “GI” is champagne, which was once used by makers of sparkling wine around the world but which the European Union (through trade deals) has successfully quarantined to local wine makers in the Champagne region of France. </p>
<p>The European Union has been lobbying the Australian government to enforce GIs for large number of dairy products, banning Australian producers using more than 50 cheese names including feta and gruyere. Yet some of the <a href="http://www.australiandairyfarmers.com.au/dairy-farmers-australia">dairy farmer organisations</a> pushing to “reclaim” the milk label as their sole preserve are also deeply opposed to losing the right to call their products by names claimed by European producers.</p>
<h2>In a word, protectionism</h2>
<p>This is not the first time the dairy industry has sought to use regulation to prevent competition from plant-based products. In the first half of the 20th century, <a href="https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/8902">quotas were placed on margarine</a> production in Australia to protect butter makers.</p>
<p>Margarine makers were also prevented from making margarine look like butter. In Australia the dairy industry was protected not just by by prohibitive duties on imported margarine but also the provision that margarine must <a href="https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/8902">be coloured pink</a>.</p>
<p>This milk tilt seems similarly motivated. But in the unlikely event the dairy purists got their way, it probably wouldn’t achieve much. It is clear people are choosing plant-based beverages for reasons that are not connecting to the name used. </p>
<p>It wouldn’t change the choice of people who avoid animal products because of animal welfare concerns. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-people-become-vegans-the-history-sex-and-science-of-a-meatless-existence-106410">Why people become vegans: The history, sex and science of a meatless existence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It wouldn’t make a difference to people avoiding cow’s milk due to lactose intolerance or other dietary restrictions. </p>
<p>These markets are the most important niches for non-dairy milks. Producers go out of their way to ensure consumers know their brands are not produced from cows and other animals. </p>
<p>Plant-based milks also rely on farmers, and thus this debate pits one type of farmer against another. </p>
<p>It is unlikely anyone is being deceived by drinking plant-based milks thinking that they are in fact dairy, or that dairy farmers would claw significant market share back by having a monopoly over the word.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123852/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather Bray does not currently receive any external funding. In the past she has received a student prize from the Dairy Research Foundation, has undertaken a consultancy for the Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre, and more recently was involved in a project funded by AgriFutures Australia and a number of other industry R&D groups including Dairy Australia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny has received funding from the Australian Research Council for several food and drink related projects, and was recently involved in a project to scope key issues relating to trust in agriculture funded by AgriFutures Australia and a number of other industry R&D groups including Dairy Australia. </span></em></p>Margarine makers once had to colour their product pink. Calls to restrict the use of the word milk are similarly protectionist.Heather Bray, Lecturer in Science Communication, The University of Western AustraliaRachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History and Philosophy, and Deputy Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1222022019-08-22T20:05:36Z2019-08-22T20:05:36ZGM crops: to ban or not to ban? That’s not the question<p>The South Australian government recently announced its intention to lift the long-standing statewide moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops, following a <a href="https://pir.sa.gov.au/primary_industry/genetically_modified_gm_crops/gm_review">statutory six-week consultation period</a>. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/339225/Independent_Review_of_the_South_Australian_GM_Food_Crop_Moratorium.pdf">government-commissioned independent review</a> had estimated the cost of the moratorium at A$33 million since 2004 for canola alone. The review concluded there was no clear market incentive to uphold the ban, except on Kangaroo Island.</p>
<p>In contrast, the <a href="https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/agriculture/2018-review-of-tasmanias-gmo-moratorium">Tasmanian government announced that its GM moratorium would be extended for 10 years</a>. It cited the state’s GM-free status as an important part of the “Tasmanian brand”, representing a market advantage, particularly for food exports. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/safety-first-assessing-the-health-risks-of-gm-foods-26099">Safety first – assessing the health risks of GM foods</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Research and commercial growing of GM crops in Australia is <a href="https://theconversation.com/setting-the-standards-who-regulates-australian-gm-food-25533">regulated under a national scheme</a>, but governed by individual states. These recent and mooted changes leave Tasmania as the only state with a blanket ban on GM organisms.</p>
<p>The science underlying genetic modification is complex and evolving. A <a href="https://www.science.org.au/education/immunisation-and-climate-change/genetic-modification-questions-and-answers">recent report</a> by an expert working group convened by the Australian Academy of Science (to which I contributed) documented the broad consensus among many professional organisations, including the World Health Organization, that <a href="https://theconversation.com/safety-first-assessing-the-health-risks-of-gm-foods-26099">GM foods and medicines are safe</a>. No ill-effects have been identified relating to human consumption, and GM foods produced so far are no different to unmodified foods in terms of safety and digestibility. </p>
<p>However, the report also highlights that this scientific evidence does not provide answers to all concerns raised by GM technologies. The public’s understanding of this issue is <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">shaped by a complex range of factors and values</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">Perceptions of genetically modified food are informed by more than just science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many people’s opinions about GM foods and crops are related to their <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14636778.2017.1287561">views on what constitutes acceptable risk</a>. There is no one right way to measure risks, and various scientific disciplines have different ways of weighing them up. For example, does the lack of evidence of harm mean we can conclude GM food is safe to eat? Or do we need positive evidence of safety? </p>
<p>That second question hinges in part on whether GM foods are seen as substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts. This has been a matter of significant debate, especially in regard to <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-a-meal-of-gm-food-labelling-28339">food labelling</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/making-a-meal-of-gm-food-labelling-28339">Making a meal of GM food labelling</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This in turn begs the further question of how long we should wait before declaring GM food safe. The very word “moratorium” implies that the ban is temporary and subject to review, but opinions differ widely about what constitutes an adequate period for rigorous testing and accumulation of evidence regarding the safety of emerging technologies.</p>
<p>People also have <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">diverse views</a> on the role of multinational corporations in agriculture and GM-related research, and concerns about the potential pressure these firms may put on farmers. Many people view the benefits of GM crops as mainly commercial, and perceive a lack of public benefit in terms of health, the environment, or food quality. </p>
<p>Some people question whether we need GM crops at all, especially as they are viewed by some as “unnatural”. Others note that their views depend on the underlying reasons for the modification, so that GM crops with potential environmental advantages might be more publicly acceptable than ones that deliver purely commercial advantages.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hu20ttJFM-0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Understanding the science is important - but not the whole story.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When people form opinions on complex issues based not solely on science, it is tempting to assume that this is because they simply don’t understand the science. But of course science doesn’t happen in the abstract – rather, it plays into our everyday decisions made in a wider context. </p>
<p>So if we want to engage people in policy decisions relating to science, we must <a href="https://theconversation.com/because-we-can-does-it-mean-we-should-the-ethics-of-gm-foods-28141">widen the scope of our conversations beyond the mere technical details to focus on underlying values</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/because-we-can-does-it-mean-we-should-the-ethics-of-gm-foods-28141">Because we can, does it mean we should? The ethics of GM foods</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The contrasting decisions in South Australia and Tasmania offer an opportunity for Australians to deepen their understanding of, and engagement with, issues relating to genetic modification. Public debates have tended to focus on the science behind gene modification and the potential risks associated with the resulting products. But they have generally paid less attention to the broader issues relating to environmental, economic, social, cultural, and other impacts. </p>
<p>We need a more sophisticated dialogue about GM food, as part of a wider societal conversation about <a href="https://theconversation.com/tastes-like-moral-superiority-what-makes-food-good-59581">what makes good food</a>. We should ask what types of farming we want to prioritise and support, rather than viewing it as a binary issue of being simply “for” or “against” GM crops.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122202/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny has received funding for research relating to public understandings of GM from the former Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research’s National Enabling Technologies Strategy’s (NETS) Public Awareness and Community Engagement Program, administered by the Government of South Australia, Science and Information Economy, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (DFEEST), and from the Australian Research Council. She also has received funding from food industry related organisations for social science research related to agriculture and food attitudes/choices, including Grain Growers SA, AgriFutures Australia, Australian Eggs Ltd, Coles Group Ltd, Elders Limited, Richard Gunner’s Fine Meats Pty Ltd, and the South Australian Research and Development Institute. Prof Ankeny is a current member of the GM Crop Advisory Committee for the Government of South Australia and a past member of the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator's Gene Ethics and Community Consultative Committee (and formerly of the Gene Ethics Committee). She has served on expert working groups on food, agriculture, and genetic technologies for the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Council of Learned Academies. The University of Adelaide, at which Prof Ankeny is employed, has numerous scientific research programs focused on various aspects of GM, but she is not directly involved in any of this research.</span></em></p>South Australia has lifted its moratorium on GM crops, while Tasmania has extended its ban. But the question should no longer be a simple binary of being “for” or “against” GM technology.Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History and Philosophy, and Deputy Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1145812019-06-18T00:16:10Z2019-06-18T00:16:10ZWhy the Australasian Health Star Rating needs major changes to make it work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279685/original/file-20190616-158921-1d13fke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C411%2C5615%2C3320&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most consumers are unaware that the Health Star Rating system is compensatory, and that one negative nutritional attribute, such as high sugar, can be cancelled out by a positive attribute like fibre. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Unhealthy diets cause multiple <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201234">physical and mental health</a> problems. To help consumers make healthier choices, Australia and New Zealand introduced the voluntary Health Star Rating (<a href="http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/content/about-health-stars">HSR</a>) system in 2014. </p>
<p>The system is supposedly designed to provide consumers with an overall signal about a food’s healthiness. Presumably, this should nudge consumers to make more informed and healthier decisions.</p>
<p>Five years on, the Australian and New Zealand governments are conducting a <a href="http://healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/content/formal-review-of-the-system-after-five-years">system review</a>. <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=3352241">Our research</a> shows that, while the initiative is noble, the devil is in the details. There is a need, and hopefully an opportunity, to improve the system and reconsider some of its key aspects. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-election-pledge-to-improve-australian-diets-is-a-first-now-we-need-action-not-just-consideration-116425">Labor's election pledge to improve Australian diets is a first – now we need action, not just 'consideration'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Loopholes and consumer misconception</h2>
<p>Under the HSR system, products are labelled from 0.5 stars (the least healthy score) to 5 stars (the healthiest products). The rating is determined by evaluating the overall nutritional value of the product. It compares the content of “good” ingredients (i.e. fibre, protein, fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes) with the “bad” ones (i.e. saturated fat, energy, total sugar and sodium). </p>
<p>But we believe most consumers are unaware that the HSR system is <a href="https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/health-star-ratings">compensatory</a>. This means one negative nutritional attribute can be cancelled out, or balanced, by a positive attribute. A manufacturer can receive a <a href="https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/03/australias-health-star-ratings-are-broken/">high HSR score for a product rich in sugar</a> by <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/91971947/health-star-rating-system-may-mislead-shoppers">adding a healthy ingredient such as fibre</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280260/original/file-20190619-171281-owkabb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280260/original/file-20190619-171281-owkabb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=138&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280260/original/file-20190619-171281-owkabb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=138&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280260/original/file-20190619-171281-owkabb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=138&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280260/original/file-20190619-171281-owkabb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=173&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280260/original/file-20190619-171281-owkabb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=173&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280260/original/file-20190619-171281-owkabb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=173&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is also likely that most consumers are unaware that the HSR rating is calculated on an “as prepared” basis. This means a product can enjoy a high rating based on the nutritional value of preparatory ingredients. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/health-star-rating-to-be-removed-from-milo-powder">Milo found itself embroiled in controversy</a> for displaying 4.5 stars on its chocolate powder, though the powder itself clearly does not merit this rating. The 4.5-star rating was based on consuming merely three teaspoons of powder combined with skim milk. But who actually consumes Milo this way? </p>
<p>Furthermore, HSR scores are intended to allow comparison only among similar products. A four-star rating for a cereal cannot be compared to a four-star rating given to milk. While the two products display the same number of stars, their healthiness may differ significantly.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/have-you-gone-vegan-keep-an-eye-on-these-4-nutrients-107708">Have you gone vegan? Keep an eye on these 4 nutrients</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What holds the system back</h2>
<p>There is scepticism about the HSR’s authenticity, reliability and effectiveness. This stems in part from the system being self-regulated. </p>
<p>In addition, the system is non-mandatory, leaving manufacturers free to decide when and how to use it. For instance, only around <a href="https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31635-the-health-star-rating-system-in-new-zealand-2014-2018">20% of packaged goods</a> available in New Zealand and Australian supermarkets have an HSR. To add to the distortion, a disproportionate number of these show high ratings. This indicates that manufacturers only use the HSR for their healthier products. </p>
<p>A voluntary system does little to counter the inbuilt incentive that manufacturers have to use unhealthy components such as sugar, salt and saturated fats. These produce pleasure and create “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-018-0020-x">craveable</a>” foods and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092846801730175X?via%3Dihub">food addiction</a>. Manufacturers likely do not use a HSR for these products. However, consumers do not interpret missing information as “the worst-case scenario”, <a href="https://hbr.org/2017/09/research-missing-product-information-doesnt-bother-consumers-as-much-as-it-should">but assume average quality</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, the system does not effectively assist the vulnerable consumers who need it the most. While HSR does help some middle- to high-income consumers, it does a poor job with respect to <a href="https://www.hpa.org.nz/sites/default/files/Final%20Report-HSR%20monitoring%20and%20evaluation%202018.pdf">consumers of low socio-economic status</a>. This suggests that the label requires consumers to be educated about its meaning.</p>
<h2>Time to move forward</h2>
<p>Some improvements could carry the HSR forward a great distance. </p>
<p>If the system were made mandatory, it would likely raise consumers’ awareness. There should also be more education initiatives about the HSR. This, in turn, would incentivise manufacturers to produce healthier foods and beverages. </p>
<p>At the same time, we should strive to minimise the costs involved and consider backing the system with government funding. This would allow all businesses to participate in the program, including less profitable or smaller businesses. It would also prevent costs from being passed onto consumers.</p>
<p>As a minimum, if the system is not made mandatory, a general “non-participation” label should be introduced. If a producer opts not to label its product, it should be required to use a conspicuous cautionary statement. Such a statement should declare, for instance, that “the manufacturer has chosen not to verify the health rating of this product” or “the healthiness of this product cannot be verified”. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/nutrition-warnings-as-frontofpack-labels-influence-of-design-features-on-healthfulness-perception-and-attentional-capture/1D45359C83C891BA20F3565083CEA363">Studies show</a> the HSR rating would have a bigger impact if placed in the upper left corner of the packaging and used colours. It could use a traffic light system, with 0.5-2.5 stars on a red background, 3 to 4 stars on amber and 4.5-5 star products on green. The colour-coded system has proved to be more effective with marginalised groups of consumers. </p>
<p>All easier said than done. </p>
<p>Healthy diets are important for <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17262-9">physical and psychological well-being</a> and for strengthening our communities and economies. However, any regulation of the food industry is likely to be resisted by its strong and well-organised lobbying power. To fight this battle, the consumers’ voice is crucial to ensure we can all make good and healthy foods choices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114581/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A food heath labelling system Australia and New Zealand introduced five years ago is under review and needs a significant overhaul to make it useful for consumers looking for healthy options.Jessica C Lai, Senior Lecturer in Commercial Law, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonAlana Harrison, LLB(Hons) & BCOM Undergraduate Student, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonHongzhi Gao, Associate professor, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonSamuel Becher, Associate Professor of Business Law, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1133382019-03-21T10:46:21Z2019-03-21T10:46:21ZWill more genetically engineered foods be approved under the FDA’s new leadership?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264654/original/file-20190319-60964-tkeko6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will food laws change as more GM foods are created?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/law-book-gavel-food-393936415">Zerbor/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world of food and drug regulation was rocked earlier this month by the news of a change in leadership at the Food and Drug Administration. Commissioner Scott Gottlieb <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/05/700482545/fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-announces-he-will-resign">resigned</a> and will step down in early April. His <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/health/fda-ned-sharpless.html">temporary replacement</a> is <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/leadership/director">Dr. Ned Sharpless</a>, director of the National Cancer Institute. </p>
<p>As the news filtered out, stocks went <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/scott-gottlieb-s-exit-has-tobacco-stocks-rising-tuesday-14887017">up</a> and <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tobacco-stocks-drop-after-new-acting-fda-commissioner-is-named-14894403">down</a>, consumer advocacy groups <a href="https://www.nclnet.org/scott_gottlieb_resigns">looked back</a> on Gottlieb’s legacy and commentators <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/5/18252139/scott-gottlieb-resigns-fda-opioid-epidemic">worried</a> about the future of the agency.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb will leave the post in early April.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/washington-dc-november-3-2017-fda-751933783">Albert H. Teich/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of the attention surrounding Gottlieb’s departure has focused on the consequences of the resignation for the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/10/fda-chiefs-departure-might-not-be-a-good-thing-for-vaping-industry.html">vaping and tobacco</a> industries. But the impact of changes in FDA leadership extends well beyond that. FDA-regulated products make up <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm553038.htm">20 percent of consumer spending</a> in the U.S. In the realm of food alone, FDA regulates <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm553038.htm">75 percent of our food supply</a>. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2667484">professor</a> who studies FDA and health law at Saint Louis University, I have been working with the <a href="https://www.slu.edu/law/health/index.php">Center for Health Law Studies</a> to monitor changes in FDA regulations and policies. Most recently I’ve been tracking progress on the FDA’s regulation of genetically modified food and think I can explain what consumers can expect from the agency after Gottlieb departs.</p>
<h2>How the FDA deals with GM plants and animals</h2>
<p>Genetically modified plants <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/geplants/ucm346030.htm">entered the U.S. market</a> in the 1990s. Since then, the official FDA position has been that food derived from genetically modified plants and animals is <a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm346858.htm">not different</a> “from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” This includes considerations regarding safety and long-time effects associated with its consumption. </p>
<p>Many people regard genetically modified food as a means to feed more people at a lower cost. However, recent studies suggest that these promises remain <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/">unfulfilled</a> since genetically engineered food first became available in the 1990s.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Chinook salmon during spawning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-chinook-salmon-during-spawning-1212401593">Kevin Cass/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ocean pout from Newfoundland, Canada.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dkeats/5532424100/">Derek Keats</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even though scientists have been able to alter the genome of animals for decades, it was not until 2008 that the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm113605.htm">issued guidance</a> on genetically modified animals. Since then, the agency has become much more active in this area. In 2017, months before Gottlieb became commissioner, the FDA issued <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm113605.htm">further guidance</a> on the use of emerging technologies, like <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/crispr-animals/">CRISPR</a>, that allow scientists to alter animal genomes.</p>
<p>As with plants, the FDA considers genetically engineered animals safe for human consumption. The agency <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/developmentapprovalprocess/newanimaldrugapplications/default.htm">reviews</a> these types of products as new animal drug applications. </p>
<p>In 2015, two years before Gottlieb began his tenure, the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/UCM466218.pdf">favorably reviewed</a> an application involving <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm473238.htm">AquAdvantage salmon.</a> Although AquAdvantage salmon was being produced in Canada in 2016, Congress directed FDA to restrict importation of AquAdvantage salmon into the United States. This genetically modified fish incorporates a growth hormone <a href="https://newfoodeconomy.org/fda-aquabounty-gmo-salmon-seafood-restriction-market/">gene</a> from Chinook salmon and links it to a genetic switch, or promoter. The promoter taken from an eel-like fish called ocean pout keeps the growth hormone gene in the “on” position, allowing it to grow significantly faster than comparable Atlantic salmon. </p>
<h2>Gottlieb’s FDA and regulation of GE food</h2>
<p>Also in 2016, Congress made the U.S. Department of Agriculture the <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/12/20/establishing-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">leading player</a> in the labeling of genetically engineered food. The USDA issued final <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">regulations</a> on this topic in late 2018. </p>
<p>As a response, on March 8, 2019, Gottlieb’s FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">reversed</a> the regulation prohibiting the importation of AquAdvantage salmon. With this decision, FDA underscored the agency’s belief that the product is safe for humans.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Both the U.S. FDA and the World Health Organization have declared genetically modified crops and engineered food safe.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/genetically-modified-crops-engineered-food-agriculture-295120262">Lightspring/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition to endorsing the general safety of genetically engineered foods, Gottlieb’s official statement highlights the FDA’s goal of explicitly <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">assuring consumers</a> that genetically engineered foods available in the United States market “meet the FDA’s high safety standards.”</p>
<p>In many ways, the response of the agency can be seen as purely mechanical and deferential to USDA and Congress. But I think it also signals continuity of a permissive policy when it comes to genetically engineered food. By treating it the same way it treats traditional food, the FDA will intervene if genetically engineered food is contaminated or prepared under unsanitary conditions, as it normally does under its general mandate as an agency tasked with protecting the public health. </p>
<p>But we should not expect FDA to challenge the <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">prevailing wisdom</a> among <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/how-are-gm-crops-regulated/">regulatory agencies</a> when it comes to genetically modified food.</p>
<p>The FDA’s behavior in this field is in line with the current scientific consensus in the <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/">United States</a> and <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/">abroad</a>. Numerous reputable institutions have upheld the safety of genetically engineered food. These include the <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat">National Academy of Sciences</a> and the <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">World Health Organization</a>. Nevertheless, there are some critics of this consensus who call for <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/">more research</a> into the long-term effects of eating genetically modified food. According to recent data, consumers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html">continue to distrust</a> genetically engineered food as well.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social justice activists staged a rally in Lafayette Park across from the White House and then marched to Monsanto’s Washington offices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenmelkisethian/14238580036/in/photolist-nGdrMf-dnoFgn-gvETVj-gr7dUZ-gvExKt-gvDXqK-26unk3Q-gvCYW3-gAtxC4-gvEQFy-gvDTwW-gAk9DK-gr7ega-gADipA-nJdjQB-etV6fy-8Fh1KR-8FjXfQ-nrPTPX-9XXYqx-gArj2b-gDY6Fa-nHXVNi-gBgbPk-gBgceE-nGypqS-gDXngj-gAtq9M-nrWUEU-gBSEdu-nJAToD-gBTcPT-gDXMBz-nJ69dW-gDWUxm-fzCmt6-gArPWH-gBThfr-gBTbxK-gBgaYH-gAjSoP-bkHahh-ngQvxa-gjKT9c-gAjgvp-gAjW3A-gAk3VR-gBTixr-3oABp-65sLVL">Stephen Melkisethian/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>GM food under Sharpless and beyond</h2>
<p>I believe that in the near future, FDA will address this distrust while continuing to guide the industry as different types of genetically engineered food enter the market.</p>
<p>Right now, we know virtually nothing about the views of the incoming acting commissioner on genetically engineered food, or food regulation in general. I think the most likely scenario is that Sharpless’ FDA will not stray from its current path regarding genetically engineered food. In 2018, Gottlieb launched a <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm624490.htm">Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan</a>, describing a public communication strategy to engage stakeholders. The plan includes public webinars on animal genome editing, as well as guidance on plant and animal biotechnology. Given the current scientific consensus, it would be surprising if Sharpless chose to move the agency in a different direction. </p>
<p>On the labeling front, now that FDA has relinquished most of its authority in this matter to the USDA, the debate is likely to shift elsewhere. Already under Gottlieb, much energy was spent on <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm621824.htm">labeling issues</a> involving almond milk and vegan cheese. The agency worried that using dairy names to described plant-based products might be confusing to consumers.</p>
<p>It is of course possible that Sharpless will not be at the helm of FDA for very long. After all, he is an interim figure of <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/trump-names-sharpless-lead-us-cancer-institute?r3f_986=https://www.google.com/">Democratic leanings</a>. However, given FDA’s <a href="https://endpts.com/how-do-you-replace-a-rock-star-like-scott-gottlieb-at-the-fda-maybe-you-dont/">improbable</a> recent history, there is reason to expect some institutional continuity in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>Consumers should therefore count on increasing numbers of genetically modified plants and animals entering our food supply. Absent a change in scientific consensus, FDA will smooth the pathway for companies to bring these products to market.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ana Santos Rutschman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With Gottlieb’s departure from the FDA imminent, what should we expect from the FDA? How is it likely to regulate the still controversial genetically engineered foods?Ana Santos Rutschman, Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1055762018-10-31T04:46:01Z2018-10-31T04:46:01ZTrust Me, I’m An Expert: Food fraud, the centuries-old problem that won’t go away<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241976/original/file-20181024-48700-ywtg7v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6000%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What is in these products? And if additives don't affect your health, would you care?
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What have you eaten today? And how much do you know about how it was produced, what was added to it along the way, and how it made its way to your plate?</p>
<p>Even as most of us grow increasingly removed from actual food production, many consumers still take food fraud and perceptions of food purity incredibly seriously. </p>
<p>Scandals around <a href="https://delishably.com/food-industry/Meat-Glue-What-It-Is-And-What-You-Should-Know">“meat glue”</a> or <a href="https://qz.com/1323471/ten-years-after-chinas-melamine-laced-infant-milk-tragedy-deep-distrust-remains/">milk</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/honey-tests-reveal-global-contamination-by-bee-harming-pesticides">honey</a> contamination, and the skyrocketing global interest in <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/07/27/organics-popularity-higher-than-ever-43-billion-2016/500129001/">organic foods</a>, underscore the fact that many of us still care quite deeply about the foods we eat and how they’re produced – and that’s affecting food labelling, regulation and consumer behaviour.</p>
<p>One person who’s studied that terrain closely is Dr Andrew Ventimiglia, a Research Fellow at The University of Queensland, who researches food fraud and how it relates to science, culture, trademark law and food regulation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/trust-me-im-an-expert-cyclone-season-approacheth-but-this-year-theres-a-twist-104309">Trust Me, I'm An Expert: Cyclone season approacheth, but this year there's a twist</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>He sat down with The Conversation’s deputy politics and society editor Justin Bergman to talk about the weird history of food adulteration and certification – everything from 19th century dairy farmers adding sheep brains to skim milk to make it look frothier, to centuries-old oil and wine adulteration scandals.</p>
<p>Dr Ventimiglia said types of food fraud laws have been recorded as early as the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3081008/Bread-rules-abandoned-after-750-years.html">13th century</a>, but the issue really came into focus in the <a href="http://www.artisanfoodlaw.co.uk/history-of-food-law/19th-century/history-of-food-law-19th-century">1800s</a>. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Adulterated milk was one of the first issues that got national attention, and this was roughly in the mid 1800s to late 1800s, both particularly in the UK and the US. And the earliest form of adulterated milk that was really concerning to regulators was actually simply skim milk.</p>
<p>Producers who were making skim milk were adding flour or starch, sometimes carrots for sweetness, but they were also adding things that did pose a public health risk.</p>
<p>So, for instance, chalk was added to increase the whiteness of milk, as well as often sheep or calf brains to froth the milk […] those posed really legitimate health risks that were recognised by early analytic chemists and that really initiated some early food regulations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And while food scandals persist today, food standards are increasingly more concerned with fraudulent claims on packaging and innovations in food production. For instance, is yoghurt made with coconut milk still considered yoghurt? What to do about foods that claim to be “all natural?”</p>
<p>Special thanks to our multimedia intern, Dilpreet Kaur Taggar, for editing this segment together. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/trust-me-im-an-expert-how-augmented-reality-may-one-day-make-music-a-visual-interactive-experience-100318">Trust Me, I'm An Expert: How augmented reality may one day make music a visual, interactive experience</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>From food adulteration to food poisoning</h2>
<p>We also hear from Associate Professor Shauna Murray from the UTS Plant Functional Biology and Climate Change Cluster, about her research into <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-ciguatera-fish-poisoning-21835">ciguatera fish poisoning</a>. It’s a non-bacterial illness associated with fish consumption and symptoms in humans may include gastrointestinal, neurological and even sometimes cardiovascular problems.</p>
<p>Editorial intern Jordan Fermanis spoke to Dr Murray about why this tropical disease is showing up further south, and how recreational fishermen are helping researchers unlock the mysteries of ciguatera. </p>
<hr>
<p>Trust Me, I’m An Expert is a podcast where we ask academics to surprise, delight and inform us with their research. You can download previous episodes <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/trust-me-podcast">here</a>.</p>
<p>And please, do check out other podcasts from The Conversation – including The Conversation US’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/heat-and-light-1968">Heat and Light</a>, about 1968 in the US, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/the-anthill">The Anthill</a> from The Conversation UK, as well as <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/mediafiles">Media Files</a>, a brand new podcast all about the media. You can find all our podcasts over <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Additional audio and credits</h2>
<p>Additional editing by Dilpreet Kaur Taggar</p>
<p>Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from <a href="https://www.elefanttraks.com/">Elefant Traks</a></p>
<p>Free Music Archive: Podington Bear, <a href="https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Podington_Bear/">Clouds, Rain, Sun</a></p>
<p>Demand increases for organic produce, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFLAkTBXtaA">23 ABC News</a>.</p>
<p>Is your honey real honey or just “sugar syrup”? <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gafNOtcShyI">ABC News Australia</a>. </p>
<p>Fake honey: Study finds disturbing results, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7M8R4350iw">ABC News Australia</a>.</p>
<p>Meat glue secret, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXXrB3rz-xU">Today Tonight</a>. </p>
<p>Chinese milk report, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-kLUyic4TM">CNN</a>. </p>
<p>Missouri Wine History, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MocfJiZGR_M">MissouriWine</a>.</p>
<p>Pure. Fresh. Milk. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vmZOniut9Y">1991 Promo</a>. </p>
<p>Australian <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QphMaa4wxI">milk ad</a>. </p>
<p>Sad Marimba Planet by Lee Rosevere from <a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Music_for_Podcasts_4/Lee_Rosevere_-_Music_for_Podcasts_4_-_02_Sad_Marimba_Planet">Free Music Archive</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105576/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Dairy farmers used to put sheep brains and chalk in skim milk to make it look frothier and whiter. Coffee, honey and wine have also been past targets of food fraudsters. Can the law ever keep up?Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorJordan Fermanis, Editorial InternJustin Bergman, International Affairs EditorDilpreet Kaur, Editorial InternLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1009332018-08-23T10:42:47Z2018-08-23T10:42:47ZWould you eat ‘meat’ from a lab? Consumers aren’t necessarily sold on ‘cultured meat’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233134/original/file-20180822-149490-tx7nfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C1371%2C3493%2C2139&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Interested in a juicy burger grown in the lab?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/QXVxgECGUsA">Oliver Sjöström/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been a busy summer for food-based biotech. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration made headlines when it approved the plant-based “<a href="https://impossiblefoods.com/if-pr/fda-no-questions-letter/">Impossible Burger</a>,” which relies on an ingredient from genetically modified yeast for its meaty taste. The European Union sparked controversy by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05814-6">extending heavy restrictions</a> on genetically modified organisms by classifying them as gene-edited crops.</p>
<p>You probably heard less about a <a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/ucm610138.htm">public meeting</a> hosted by the FDA on “cultured meat” – meats that don’t come directly from animals, but instead from cell cultures. Lab-grown meats will be increasingly big news as they <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mosa-meat-lab-grown-meat-could-be-restaurants-by-2021/">draw closer</a> to entering the marketplace. But research suggests that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4">consumers may not readily accept</a> the idea of burgers sourced from a lab instead of a farm <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/01/health/clean-in-vitro-meat-food/index.html">once they’re widely available</a>. Would you?</p>
<p>Opinion polls seem to indicate that public attitudes about cultured meat are currently all over the place, depending on who’s asking and who’s being asked. Overlooking the details may spell trouble for its acceptance in the U.S. and internationally.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233140/original/file-20180822-149463-1v1n4fq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233140/original/file-20180822-149463-1v1n4fq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233140/original/file-20180822-149463-1v1n4fq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=326&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233140/original/file-20180822-149463-1v1n4fq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=326&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233140/original/file-20180822-149463-1v1n4fq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=326&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233140/original/file-20180822-149463-1v1n4fq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233140/original/file-20180822-149463-1v1n4fq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233140/original/file-20180822-149463-1v1n4fq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">First cultured hamburger, before being cooked.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_cultured_hamburger_unbaked.png">World Economic Forum</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Out of the lab, onto the grill</h2>
<p>This emerging biotechnology captured attention in 2013 with a live tasting of a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23576143">lab-grown burger</a>, which had a US$330,000 price tag. Production has gone largely under the radar since then, but researchers and companies have been racing to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/20/meet-the-future-of-meat-a-10-lab-grown-hamburger-that-tastes-as-good-as-the-real-thing/">lower the price</a> and, they say, are finally on the cusp of an affordable product.</p>
<p>Production of cell-cultured meat involves retrieving a live animal’s adult muscle <a href="https://gizmodo.com/behind-the-hype-of-lab-grown-meat-1797383294">stem cells</a> and setting them in a nutrient-rich liquid. Proponents claim future techniques could <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2017/jul/24/lab-grown-food-indiebio-artificial-intelligence-walmart-vegetarian">allow these cells to make many burgers</a> without collecting more cells from an animal. Groups of these multiplying cells eventually look like patties or nuggets because they grow around a “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60881-9">scaffold</a>,” which helps the meat take on a desired shape. The result is a product that looks and tastes like meat because it’s made from animal cells, rather than plant-based products that lack animal tissue but try to look and taste like it.</p>
<p>Because cultured meat doesn’t involve livestock, and thus avoids the associated environmental impacts and ethical issues, it’s been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008">highly anticipated</a> by environmental groups, animal welfare advocates and some health conscious consumers. Producing cultured meat, it’s claimed, could consume fewer natural resources, avoid slaughter and <a href="https://theconversation.com/weighing-up-lab-grown-steak-the-problems-with-eating-meat-are-not-silicon-valleys-to-solve-84122">remove the need</a> for the growth hormones used in the traditional meat industry.</p>
<h2>What’s in a name?</h2>
<p>Before cell-cultured meat goes on the market, regulators need to decide what it can be called. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/lab-grown-meat/565049/">Possible names</a> include “clean meat,” “in vitro meat,” “artificial meat” and even “<a href="https://www.agweb.com/article/an-alt-meat-reckoning-not-all-roses-and-rainbows/">alt-meat</a>.”</p>
<p>But opinions and critiques vary widely. Most notably, the <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/e4749f95-e79a-4ba5-883b-394c8bdc97a3/18-01-Petition-US-Cattlement-Association020918.pdf?MOD=AJPERES">U.S. Cattlemen’s Association worries</a> that the term “meat” will <a href="https://mailchi.mp/uscattlemen/senate-eld-letter-1817769">confuse consumers</a> since these products will directly compete with traditional farm-raised meat. The industry group prefers what are perhaps less-appetizing terms, like “cultured tissue.”</p>
<p>Jumping onto the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/clean-eating-30599">clean eating</a>” craze, the Good Food Institute – a nonprofit that promotes alternatives to animal-products – favors the term “<a href="https://www.gfi.org/the-naming-of-clean-meat">clean meat</a>,” claiming the language evokes a positive image with consumers and may increase its acceptance.</p>
<p>The Consumers Union – the advocacy arm of the magazine Consumer Reports – counters that the public wants to know how the product was made, <a href="https://consumersunion.org/news/consumer-reports-survey-consumers-want-clear-labeling-to-distinguish-lab-grown-meat-from-conventional-meat/">requiring a more visible distinction</a> from farm-raised meat.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the American Meat Science Association – an organization focused on the science of producing and processing animal-based meat – worries that the term “meat” <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau7753">may inaccurately suggest</a> that lab-grown protein is as safe and nutritious as <a href="https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/risk-red-meat">traditional meat</a>.</p>
<p>This summer’s FDA meeting <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-meat-anyway/">sparked even more discussion</a> over labeling. The debate is reminiscent of the one over what to call <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/12/21/506319408/soy-almond-coconut-if-its-not-from-a-cow-can-you-legally-call-it-milk">non-dairy beverages</a>, like almond and soy “milk,” that do not originate from an animal. </p>
<p>Yet even as regulators and industry lobbyists spar over names, they are overlooking a far more important factor in the viability of lab-grown meat: consumers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233141/original/file-20180822-149481-1cw2y6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233141/original/file-20180822-149481-1cw2y6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233141/original/file-20180822-149481-1cw2y6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233141/original/file-20180822-149481-1cw2y6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233141/original/file-20180822-149481-1cw2y6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233141/original/file-20180822-149481-1cw2y6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233141/original/file-20180822-149481-1cw2y6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233141/original/file-20180822-149481-1cw2y6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who’s most likely to show up at a cookout with cultured meat?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/jLzukAj_PhQ">Zac Cain/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Everyone has an opinion</h2>
<p>In Michigan State University’s <a href="https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/msu-food-literacy-and-engagement-poll-wave-ii">Food Literacy and Engagement Poll</a>, we surveyed over 2,100 Americans in 2018 asking, “How likely would you be to purchase foods that look and taste identical to meat, but are based on ingredients that are produced artificially?” We intentionally didn’t use terms like “cultured meat” and “lab-grown meat” to avoid influencing the response based on a particular term.</p>
<p>We found just one-third of Americans would be likely to purchase cultured meat, with the other two-thirds veering toward caution. Forty-eight percent told us they’d be unlikely to buy this product. The question did not provide much detail about cell-cultured meats, so our results represent a general reaction to the idea of purchasing “traditional” versus “artificial” meat.</p>
<p>When we split the poll results out by income, participants in households earning over $75,000 per year were nearly twice as likely to say they’d purchase cultured meat (47 percent), compared to those in households earning less than $25,000 per year (26 percent). It seems that the more people earn, the more likely they are to switch from being undecided about cultured meat to being willing to give it a try. But the proportion who said they were unlikely to try cultured meat didn’t vary much at all as income rose.</p>
<p><iframe id="6HrG3" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/6HrG3/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>A more striking difference was seen with the poll participant’s age. Eighteen to 29-year-olds were nearly five times more likely (51 percent) to say they’d purchase cultured meat products compared to those 55 and over (only 11 percent). And college graduates were substantially more likely to say they’d purchase cultured meat products (44 percent) compared to non-college graduates (24 percent).</p>
<p>We also found that 43 percent of men said they’d likely try artificial meats but just 24 percent of women did – a gender difference that was also seen in a separate <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171904">2007 study</a>. Notably, the same study also found that politically liberal respondents are more likely to eat cultured meat than their more conservative counterparts.</p>
<p>Consumer behavior is often more complex than a single, aggregate snapshot of the entire population can convey. While many people could respond differently at the grocery store than in an online poll about a product that’s not yet on the market, our findings <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/17/us-views-of-technology-and-the-future/">and others</a> suggest that attitudes related to cultured meat – however it ends up being labeled – are complicated and likely influenced by one’s values and experiences.</p>
<p>Cultured meat may have environmental and ethical appeal, but its success in the marketplace depends on far more than technological and economic viability. Regulators and producers will need to consider the wide spectrum of opinions and attitudes held by consumers if the benefits of this technology are to be widely enjoyed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100933/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sheril Kirshenbaum is affiliated with Science Debate. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard and Walter G. Johnson do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cultured meat comes from cells in a lab, not muscles in an animal. While regulatory and technological aspects are being worked out, less is known about whether people are up for eating this stuff.Walter G. Johnson, JD Candidate, Arizona State UniversityAndrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State UniversitySheril Kirshenbaum, Associate Research Scientist, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1009062018-08-21T13:02:05Z2018-08-21T13:02:05ZFood claims: when enforcers become paid ‘advisors’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232890/original/file-20180821-149469-1qtcwwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Testing the claims.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/low-fat-salt-carb-sugar-glycemic-123025687?src=j6EipRSc_3kFzaUUs1Ldzg-1-14">Shutterstock/YeLeiw</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Consumers in the UK rely on and trust their local authorities to carry out the necessary checks on food businesses, restaurants and takeaways to ensure they are operating within the rules – from environmental health standards to food labelling. But businesses are actually allowed to pay these same local authorities for advice. </p>
<p>This provides a useful income stream for cash-strapped councils and, perhaps, inadvertently creates a relationship of suitor and donor with the implicit conflicts of interest that such a relationship brings. <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201178">Our new research</a> uncovered this little known practice and I believe it is something the public should be more aware of.</p>
<p>When local authority regulators enforce <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006R1924">the law relating to nutrition and health claims</a> made about foods, our study found that some trading standards and environmental health officers gave advice (for which they sometimes charged) to businesses on how to comply. They did this instead of taking enforcement action. This is legal but consumers are unaware of it and its full implications.</p>
<p>There are around 1,500 such <a href="https://primary-authority.beis.gov.uk/par">partnership arrangements</a> between local authorities and businesses. In this arrangement, a food manufacturer can get advice from the council about how it can claim it’s noodle salad, for example, is a “superfood” or “high in protein”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232528/original/file-20180817-165943-1paxja1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232528/original/file-20180817-165943-1paxja1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232528/original/file-20180817-165943-1paxja1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232528/original/file-20180817-165943-1paxja1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232528/original/file-20180817-165943-1paxja1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232528/original/file-20180817-165943-1paxja1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232528/original/file-20180817-165943-1paxja1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Claims on food labels should be checked by local authorities for their veracity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/woman-checking-food-exp-date-supermarket-505056901?src=Zb5RiHF3DYORJlhx6khhHg-1-16">shutterstock/allensima</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Consumer protection and the EU</h2>
<p>The use of claims such as “high in fibre” or “enhances your body’s natural defences” in food labelling is governed by <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006R1924">Regulation (EC) 1924/2006</a> which requires that they must be scientifically substantiated. The <a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/">European Food Safety Authority</a> assesses the claim and makes a recommendation based on the evidence, publishing its findings on the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/claims/register/public/?event=register.home">EU Register on nutrition and health claims</a> </p>
<p>Where a claim is authorised in relation to a food or ingredient, it may be used by food manufacturers to promote the sale of the food or a product that contains the ingredient to consumers. This way, consumers know that they will not be misled by claims that are false or exaggerated.</p>
<p>There has been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27484471">a lively debate</a> around this regulation. But the EU has designed a harmonised system that provides strong consumer protection. The enforcement of the regulation is a matter for member states and, in the UK, this job is given to local authorities.</p>
<h2>Increasing food ‘claims’ but fewer prosecutions</h2>
<p>While there are <a href="https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/nutrition-and-health-claims">increasing claims</a> made for foods, there are few reported cases of prosecutions under the regulation. We interviewed 20 trading standards and environmental health officers to find out why. These officers are responsible for enforcing a wide range of consumer law, from dangerous toys and fake alcohol to underage sales of tobacco and food hygiene. In the light of these demands, we found that enforcing health and nutrition claims was low on their list of priorities.</p>
<p>Of course, false claims aren’t as immediately risky as unhygienic food preparation. But multiple, low-level infractions pose their own, often long-term problems for consumers.</p>
<p>The lack of prosecutions might indicate high compliance levels or there may be other reasons – for example, a lack of appetite for an expensive and lengthy legal wrangle with a large food business or, at the other end of the spectrum, a futile and dispiriting spat with a rogue trader. </p>
<p>Local authority regulators have borne the brunt of government <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/07/trading-standards-institute-consumers-are-no-longer-protected">austerity cuts</a> so it would be unsurprising if traders felt they were safe from the risk of any real action.</p>
<p>An advisory approach to regulatory enforcement may now be a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jleo/article-abstract/22/2/459/880294">necessary component of an effective enforcement strategy</a>. But the shift to an advisory role can create additional pressures for regulators. We found that there was an expectation from businesses that regulators would be on hand to provide advice free of charge whenever it was required. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232529/original/file-20180817-165934-vqkeug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232529/original/file-20180817-165934-vqkeug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232529/original/file-20180817-165934-vqkeug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232529/original/file-20180817-165934-vqkeug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232529/original/file-20180817-165934-vqkeug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232529/original/file-20180817-165934-vqkeug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232529/original/file-20180817-165934-vqkeug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The use of claims such as ‘high in fibre’ in food labelling is governed by Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 which requires that they must be scientifically substantiated.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/reading-nutrition-label-on-food-packaging-56991715?src=Zb5RiHF3DYORJlhx6khhHg-1-21">Shutterstock/Brian.A.Jackson</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But we also discovered that, rather than an alternative to action, advice represented a preliminary step towards stronger measures and that there was a pyramid of enforcement action with fewer but more grave cases the higher up you ascend. </p>
<p>While providing advice is a reasonable and pragmatic response to achieving compliance, it should not hamper a regulator’s ability to take action. Nor should it create a conflict of interest where the enforcer provides the advice as a service for which it levies a charge. The roles of advisor and enforcer are distinct and where they overlap, enforcers need to exercise their discretion independently with an overriding duty to the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ajay Patel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It may come as a shock to discover that businesses are allowed to pay local authorities for advice on environmental health standards and food labelling.Ajay Patel, Senior Lecturer in Food Law, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/989152018-06-28T10:38:13Z2018-06-28T10:38:13ZMandatory labels with simple disclosures reduced fears of GE foods in Vermont<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224796/original/file-20180625-19390-14lj6ja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vermont has had food labels that indicate food has been 'partially produced with genetic engineering.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sally McCay, UVM Photo</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been substantial debate over whether mandated labels for genetically engineered foods might increase or decrease consumer aversion toward genetic engineering. </p>
<p>This question is particularly relevant now since <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/04/2018-09389/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">comments on proposed rules</a> for implementing a national labeling law are being accepted until July 3, 2018. Two years ago, a mandatory Vermont law went in effect. </p>
<p>Mandatory labeling of GE food has been opposed by many scientific organizations, including the <a href="https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf">American Association for the Advancement of Science.</a> But, a majority of consumers have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html">consistently</a> <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/poll-finds-americans-support-gmo-food-labeling">expressed</a> <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1">desires for labeling GE foods</a>. </p>
<p>A primary concern expressed with mandatory labels is that they will signal that GE food is unsafe or <a href="http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/">harmful to the environment</a>. The opposing view is that labels give consumers a sense of control or <a href="http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/new-evidence-finds-gmo-labels-will-reassure-consumers-more-than-scare-them-away">improve trust</a>, lowering perceived risk of GE food. Empirical support for these arguments, both for and against labeling, has been mixed. Importantly, they are based on hypothetical studies. That is, people are asked what they think or how they will behave, or they react to mock labels. Until the Vermont law, there were no actual GE labels to use in research on the topic.</p>
<p>Our study, <a href="http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaaq1413">published in Science Advances</a>, aimed to help resolve the debate about the impact of simple disclosure GE labels on consumer support of and opposition to GE food. </p>
<p>The dataset we used measured levels of opposition to GE foods in a national control group compared to levels in Vermont, the only U.S. state to have implemented mandatory labeling of GE foods. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_bMtEckAAAAJ&hl=en">Jayson Lusk</a> from Purdue University provided the national data and I provided the Vermont data. In total, 7,800 consumers from 2014 to 2017 were asked to rank their opposition to GE food. </p>
<p>By comparing the responses of Vermonters to what other states’ residents reported, we could estimate the impact of the labeling policy on consumer attitudes after Vermont consumers experienced labels in the marketplace. </p>
<p>Our analysis of opposition to GE food before and after mandatory labeling shows that the policy of providing simple disclosure labels led to a 19 percent reduction in opposition to GE food. Our estimates were obtained from a <a href="http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/linmult.htm">multiple regression framework</a> – a statistic method for comparing different variables, which in our <a href="http://www.nber.org/WNE/lect_10_diffindiffs.pdf">model</a> included location (Vermont versus the rest of the U.S.) and presence of mandatory labels (time periods before versus after mandatory labels appeared in Vermont). </p>
<p>Regardless of how we controlled for different variables, such as demographics, the impact of the mandatory labeling policy on consumer opposition to GE technologies in Vermont relative to the rest of the U.S. is significant and negative. That is, opposition to the use of GM technology in food production fell in Vermont, post labeling.</p>
<p>We know of no other U.S. study that determined the impact on consumer attitudes toward the use of GE technologies in food production using U.S. national data from states not requiring GE labels and data from a state where consumers were exposed to mandatory GE labels. </p>
<p>Our study provides evidence that a simple disclosure, one of the suggestions for the standards being developed at the federal level, is not likely to signal to consumers that GE foods are more risky, unsafe or otherwise harmful. In fact, it does the opposite. This national study cannot identify why this change occurred. But, the findings are consistent with some prior research that suggests labels give consumers a <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/DIEAVA">sense of control</a> or autonomy. </p>
<p>Previous research in food risk communication lays out <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10551-010-0724-6.pdf">seven “practical” principles</a>. These seem applicable to GE labeling for policymakers and food producers:</p>
<ol>
<li> Be honest and open</li>
<li> Disclose incentives and conflicts of interest</li>
<li> Take all available relevant knowledge into consideration</li>
<li> When possible, quantify risk</li>
<li> Describe and explain uncertainties</li>
<li> Take all the public’s concerns into account, and </li>
<li> Take the rights of individuals and groups seriously.</li>
</ol>
<p>Whether simple disclosures on GE labels improve a sense of control, improve trust, or operate by some other psychological mechanism is a question we leave to future research. </p>
<p>The proposed national labeling rules put forward simple disclosures as just one of several ways to communicate that foods are produced using GE. The proposed rules also change the wording from genetically engineered (GM, GE, GMO) to bio-engineered (BE). </p>
<p>Our results are based on actual labels seen in the marketplace, which stated “produced or partially produced using genetic engineering.” More research is needed to assess how a change in the vocabulary – from GE or GMO to BE, for instance – to describe genetic engineering, or how alternative ways for communicating GE information on labels will affect consumer attitudes and purchase decisions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98915/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Kolodinsky receives funding from the United States Department of Agriculture and the Vermont Experiment Station.
</span></em></p>Vermonters’ views on labels for genetically engineered foods shed light on consumers’ views, as the federal government considers mandatory labels.Jane Kolodinsky, Professor and Chair Community Development and Applied Economics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/931292018-03-25T20:01:30Z2018-03-25T20:01:30ZShould lab-grown meat be labelled as meat when it’s available for sale?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210964/original/file-20180319-104671-pk2mjw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian regulators will soon be faced with a challenge: can animal flesh produced in a lab be called meat? </p>
<p>Amid <a href="https://www.qt.com.au/news/lab-grown-meat-could-be-shops-year/3351572/">reports</a> that lab-grown meat could be on sale this year, the US Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) last month filed <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/e4749f95-e79a-4ba5-883b-394c8bdc97a3/18-01-Petition-US-Cattlement-Association020918.pdf?MOD=AJPERES">a petition</a> to the US government advocating for a legal definition of “beef” and “meat”.</p>
<p>They want a definition that excludes “man-made” or “artificially manufactured products”. To be labelled as beef and meat, they argue, the product should be derived from “the tissue or flesh of animals that have been harvested in the traditional manner”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/weighing-up-lab-grown-steak-the-problems-with-eating-meat-are-not-silicon-valleys-to-solve-84122">Weighing up lab-grown steak: the problems with eating meat are not Silicon Valley's to solve</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This is the latest regulatory issue raised in relation to controversial emerging food technologies. From genetically modified (GM) and irradiated food to nanotechnologies, the contending views centre around the kinds of food systems we want, and the technological means we use to get there. </p>
<p>Like these other food technologies, labelling of lab-grown meat products is already proving contentious.</p>
<h2>The rise of lab meat</h2>
<p>Generally, companies that grow meat in the lab emphasise the “meatiness” of their future products, to appeal to consumers and food standards regulators.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.memphismeats.com/about-us/">Memphis Meats</a>, funded in part by dominant US meat processor <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2018/01/29/exclusive-interview-tyson-invests-in-lab-grown-protein-startup-memphis-meats-joining-bill-gates-and-richard-branson/">Tyson Foods Inc</a>, <a href="http://www.memphismeats.com/about-us/">describes its work as</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(…) developing a way to produce real meat from animal cells, without the need to feed, breed and slaughter actual animals.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is also common for startups for lab-grown product manufacturing to position animal tissue engineering as a type of farming, as opposed to a new process.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.supermeat.com/">Supermeat</a>, another silicon valley meat startup, refers to lab-grown meat as “clean meat”, which it says is no different from today’s rice, milk, tomato, meat and broccoli, adding:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All of the food products we know and love underwent some human intensive intervention, and without such, they would be impossible to consume. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ironically, though, lab-grown meat companies have had to emphasise the novelty of the processes that go into growing meat in order to get patents and attract investors. They have also <a href="https://www.new-harvest.org/about#mission_vision">emphasised</a> the different processes that go into lab-grown meat to support the products’ environmental and ethical claims. </p>
<p>Growing meat is a very different process from breeding and slaughtering animals. It begins with the submersion of stem cells from donor animals or embryos into a serum that is placed into a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/bioreactors">bioreactor</a>. This <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/07/why_is_fetal_cow_blood_used_to_grow_fake_meat.html">serum</a> is commonly from the fetuses of dead cows. </p>
<p>To engineer animal flesh from cells grown in the lab, a few techniques exist. For instance, 3D printers have the potential to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/3dprinted-meat-makes-the-cut/news-story/4b8a3f98b22103f8310d4a58c5ce4adf">print lab-grown meat</a> that is not only multidimensional but also contains fat and blood.</p>
<p>Although technical barriers <a href="https://cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311932.2017.1320814">remain</a>, the influx of investment into lab-grown meats and the <a href="http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/answering-how-a-sausage-gets-made-will-be-more-complicated-in-2020">projected price drop</a> have buttressed <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/clean-meat-lab-grown-available-restaurants-2018-global-warming-greenhouse-emissions-a8236676.html">claims</a> that synthetic meat products will be on sale within three years. </p>
<h2>Lab meat in Australia</h2>
<p>Trade agreements will stop Australia rejecting imports of lab-grown meat without scientific justification. Australia will have to import lab-grown meat, and products such as “food ink” cartridges for 3D printers that contain synthetic meat. </p>
<p>But before we can eat our lab-grown meat and three veg, the Food Standards Australian and New Zealand Authority will have to perform public health and safety assessments on each different lab-grown meat product. As a “novel” food, lab-grown meat triggers requirements under our <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00324">food standards code</a></p>
<p>In Australia, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00173">meat is defined</a> as “the whole or part of the carcass if slaughtered” of “any animal”. This includes the usual suspects (cattle, pig and poultry), as well as any other animal that is allowed for human consumption under state and territories’ individual laws.</p>
<p>To use the word “meat” on a food label in Australia, the contents would have to satisfy this definition. </p>
<p>For ethical and market reasons, lab-grown meat companies would not want to satisfy that legal definition of “meat”. After all, being seen as <a href="http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/real-meat-without-hurting-animals.php">“victimless” meat</a> is a key selling point of lab-grown meat.</p>
<p>Some lab-grown products will contain part of a slaughtered carcass through the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/07/why_is_fetal_cow_blood_used_to_grow_fake_meat.html">use of bovine fetal serum (derived from blood from a cow fetus)</a>. Synthetic meat using this serum could then satisfy the definition of the word “meat” and be labelled as such. </p>
<p>But companies using lab-grown meat that contains the blood of cow fetuses would also have to stay away from making victimless claims. These claims would arguably mislead consumers and breach consumer law. </p>
<h2>When is milk, milk?</h2>
<p>With the labels of lab-grown meat under close scrutiny by farming groups, it could still be politically risky to label lab-grown meat as meat, considering the push by dairy industries from <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-06/cp170063en.pdf">the European Union</a>, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/130/text">the United States</a> and <a href="http://adf.farmonline.com.au/news/magazine/industry-news/general/pressure-mounts-on-imitation-milk-labels/2756089.aspx">Australia</a> to ban plant-based products from using the word “dairy” or “milk”, such as in almond milk or rice milk. </p>
<p>Equally, the term “meat-free” does not apply to lab-grown meat. Consumers would reasonably expect, at least initially, that a product labelled “meat-free” would contain no animal material. </p>
<p>Stuck between a rock and a hard place, lab-grown meat companies may have to opt for vague product names without the word “meat”, and clunky product descriptions, such as “muscle grown from animal-derived cells” or “biosynthesised cultured isolated cells from cow skeletal muscle”. Such non-natural-sounding descriptors may affect consumer acceptability and public trust. </p>
<p>Then again, the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L00389">company name of the manufacturer</a> is required on food labels in Australia. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-animal-required-but-would-people-eat-artificial-meat-72372">No animal required, but would people eat artificial meat?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Lab-grown meat companies have been careful to include “meat” in their (often trademarked) names including <a href="http://mosameat.eu">MosaMeats</a>, <a href="http://supermeat.com/">SuperMeat</a> and <a href="http://www.memphismeats.com/">Memphis Meats</a>. The use of such company names on lab-grown meat labels could infer to consumers that lab-grown meat is the same as traditional meat without raising any legal issues. </p>
<p>Given that some groups within Australia may have a commercial interest in undermining consumer acceptance of lab-grown meat, it is all the more important to discuss the labelling of lab-grown meat out in the open – that is, within a regulatory process that is transparent and participatory. </p>
<p>The current institution and process for setting food labelling standards in Australia is, however, <a href="https://theconversation.com/packaged-products-may-contain-more-than-the-label-states-including-allergens-90389">highly</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-limit-of-labels-ethical-food-is-more-than-consumer-choice-59908">criticised</a>. Meanwhile, farmers remain a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21806725">trusted group</a> for the general public of Australia, giving the edge to traditional meat products. </p>
<h2>A ‘cheaper’ food source?</h2>
<p>Lab-grown meat is <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/vmware-2017/lab-grown-meat/1551/">positioned</a> as the solution to food insecurity and the harms caused by industrial agriculture including its high greenhouse gas <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/22/cultured-meat-environment-diet-nutrition">emissions</a>.</p>
<p>Certainly, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es200130u">some empirical works</a> support the claim that lab-grown meat will be far less resource intensive and polluting than intensive animal agriculture.</p>
<p>But some are already <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614">casting doubt</a>, or at least presenting a more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.04.001">realistic perspective</a>, on the environmental benefits of lab-grown meat. </p>
<p>Culturing meat in bioreactors is more energy-intensive than the production of other plant-based meat substitutes and the production of smaller animals (such as chickens). Meanwhile, the environmental impact of producing the materials required to feed cells is unclear, as is the amount of waste produced during the process. </p>
<h2>So what’s on the label?</h2>
<p>Clear prohibitions on the labelling of lab-grown meat as “meat” are likely to appeal to many sides, except perhaps the lab-grown meat companies themselves. </p>
<p>For <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662514521106">some</a>, synthetic meat falls decidedly into the “frankenfood” column, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.027">mainstream</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60883-2">media</a> coverage strongly plays into these feelings. The growing preference for unprocessed, whole foods may drive demand for laws that require labels to distinguish between meat and synthetic meat. </p>
<p>For <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171904">others</a>, especially carnivores, lab-grown meat promises to reconcile the tension between wanting to eat meat without contributing to the harms caused by intensive livestock systems. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-limit-of-labels-ethical-food-is-more-than-consumer-choice-59908">The limit of labels: ethical food is more than consumer choice</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In contrast to the US Cattlemen’s Association, the <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/industry-news/3d-printing-technology-for-value-added-red-meat/">Meat and Livestock Association of Australia </a> frames 3D-printed meat as an <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/3dprinted-meat-makes-the-cut/news-story/4b8a3f98b22103f8310d4a58c5ce4adf">opportunity</a> to increase the price of real beef products. </p>
<p>As Tom Stockwell, a cattle producer and outgoing president of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-03-23/lab-meat-technology-and-foreign-investment-nt-cattleman-forum/9570984">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>(…) it makes the targeting of higher-value markets and using our natural grazing practices more appealing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We can expect lobbying in Australia for mandatory labels that differentiate between lab-grown products and meat over the next few years. But, unlike in the US, this lobbying is less likely to resist lab-grown meat being labelled as meat, and more likely to focus on letting consumers know whether their meat was lab-grown or farm-produced.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93129/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hope Johnson produced this article under the ARC Discovery Grant, "Inventing the Future: Intellectual Property and 3D Printing" ARC DP170100758.</span></em></p>Can you call it meat if it’s been artificially produced? That’s the question cattlemen in the US are asking, and something food regulators will have to grapple with soon when it coms to labelling.Hope Johnson, Lecturer, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.