tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/labelling-355/articlesLabelling – 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/2104622023-08-10T20:00:53Z2023-08-10T20:00:53ZWhat’s in vapes? Toxins, heavy metals, maybe radioactive polonium<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541174/original/file-20230804-29-77kck2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C1%2C997%2C664&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-girl-smokes-disposable-electronic-cigarette-1943062066">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you asked me what’s in e-cigarettes, disposable vapes or e-liquids, my short answer would be “we don’t fully know”.</p>
<p>The huge and increasing range of products and flavours on the market, changes to ingredients when they are heated or interact with each other, and inadequate labelling make this a complicated question to answer.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-anchem-061318-115329">Analytical chemistry</a>, including <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2022/216/1/chemical-analysis-fresh-and-aged-australian-e-cigarette-liquids">my own team’s research</a>, gives some answers. But understanding the health impacts adds another level of complexity. E-cigarettes’ risk to health varies depending on <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.1c00070">many factors</a> including which device or flavours are used, and how people use them.</p>
<p>So vapers just don’t know what they’re inhaling and cannot be certain of the health impacts.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-vapes-arent-95-less-harmful-than-cigarettes-heres-how-this-decade-old-myth-took-off-203039">No, vapes aren't 95% less harmful than cigarettes. Here's how this decade-old myth took off</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What do we know?</h2>
<p>Despite these complexities, there are some consistencies between what different laboratories find.</p>
<p>Ingredients include nicotine, flavouring chemicals, and the liquids that carry them – primarily propylene glycol and glycerine.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.industrialchemicals.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-08/Non-nicotine%20liquids%20for%20e-cigarette%20devices%20in%20Australia%20chemistry%20and%20health%20concerns%20%5BPDF%201.21%20MB%5D.pdf">Concerningly</a>, we also find volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and carcinogens (agents that can cause cancer), many of which we know are harmful. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2019/210/3/nicotine-and-other-potentially-harmful-compounds-nicotine-free-e-cigarette">previous</a> <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2022/216/1/chemical-analysis-fresh-and-aged-australian-e-cigarette-liquids">research</a> also found 2-chlorophenol in about half of e-liquids users buy to top-up re-fillable e-cigarettes. This is one example of a chemical with no valid reason to be there. Globally, it’s <a href="https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Chlorophenol#section=Hazard-Classes-and-Categories">classified</a> as “harmful if inhaled”. Its presence is likely due to contamination during manufacturing.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/many-e-cigarette-vaping-liquids-contain-toxic-chemicals-new-australian-research-169615">Many e-cigarette vaping liquids contain toxic chemicals: new Australian research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How about polonium?</h2>
<p>One potential ingredient that has been in the news in recent weeks is radioactive polonium-210, the same substance used to <a href="https://theconversation.com/litvinenko-poisoning-polonium-explained-53514">assassinate</a> former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The Queensland government is <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-26/queensland-scientists-test-vapes-for-polonium-210/102564282">now testing</a> vapes for it.</p>
<p>Polonium-210 <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9207432/">can be found</a> in traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products. That’s because tobacco plants <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.153.3738.880">absorb it</a> and other radioactive materials from the soil, air and high-phosphate fertiliser.</p>
<p>Whether polonium-210 is found in aerosols produced by e-cigarettes remains to be seen. Although it is feasible if the glycerine in e-liquids comes from plants and similar fertilisers are used to grow them.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1684030171287019522"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/litvinenko-poisoning-polonium-explained-53514">Litvinenko poisoning: polonium explained</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>It’s not just the ingredients</h2>
<p>Aside from their ingredients, the materials e-cigarette devices are made from can end up in our bodies.</p>
<p><a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP2175">Toxic metals</a> and <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP5686">related substances</a> such as arsenic, lead, chromium and nickel can be detected in both e-liquids and vapers’ urine, saliva and blood.</p>
<p>These substances can pose serious health risks (such as being carcinogenic). They can leach from several parts of an e-cigarette, including the heating coil, wires and soldered joints.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541152/original/file-20230804-21381-h5ifyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C0%2C997%2C655&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Colourful, disposable vapes on a blue background" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541152/original/file-20230804-21381-h5ifyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C0%2C997%2C655&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541152/original/file-20230804-21381-h5ifyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541152/original/file-20230804-21381-h5ifyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541152/original/file-20230804-21381-h5ifyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541152/original/file-20230804-21381-h5ifyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541152/original/file-20230804-21381-h5ifyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541152/original/file-20230804-21381-h5ifyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chemicals from the device itself can end up in our blood, urine and saliva.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/set-colorful-disposable-electronic-cigarettes-on-2065547126">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-asked-over-700-teens-where-they-bought-their-vapes-heres-what-they-said-190669">We asked over 700 teens where they bought their vapes. Here's what they said</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>That’s not all</h2>
<p>The process of heating e-liquids to create an inhalable aerosol also changes their chemical make-up to produce <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00410">degradation</a> <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b02205">products</a>. </p>
<p>These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>formaldehyde (a substance used to embalm dead bodies)</p></li>
<li><p>acetaldehyde (a key substance that contributes to a hangover after drinking alcohol)</p></li>
<li><p>acrolein (used as a chemical weapon in the first world war and now used as a herbicide).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These chemicals are <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/10/12/714">often detected</a> in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6129974">e-cigarette samples</a>. However due to different devices and how the samples are collected, the <a href="https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-017-0249-x">levels measured</a> <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b02205">vary widely</a> between studies.</p>
<p>Often, the levels are very low, leading to proponents of vaping arguing e-cigarettes are far safer than tobacco smoking. </p>
<p>But this argument does not acknowledge that many e-cigarette users (particularly adolescents) <a href="https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-18-e-cigarettes/18-3-extent">were or are not cigarette smokers</a>, meaning a better comparison is between e-cigarette use and breathing “fresh” air. </p>
<p>An e-cigarette user is undoubtedly exposed to more toxins and harmful substances than a non-smoker. People who buy tobacco cigarettes are also confronted with a plethora of warnings about the hazards of smoking, while vapers generally are not.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sex-and-lies-are-used-to-sell-vapes-online-even-we-were-surprised-at-the-marketing-tactics-we-found-200446">Sex and lies are used to sell vapes online. Even we were surprised at the marketing tactics we found</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How about labelling?</h2>
<p>This leads to another reason why it’s impossible to tell what is in vapes – the lack of information, including warnings, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00595">on the label</a>.</p>
<p>Even if labels are present, they don’t always reflect what’s in the product. Nicotine concentration of e-liquids is often quite different to what is on the label, and “nicotine-free” e-liquids often <a href="https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)30134-3/fulltext">contain nicotine</a>.</p>
<p>Products are also labelled with generic flavour names such as “berry” or “tobacco”. But there is no way for a user to know what chemicals have been added to make those “berry” or “tobacco” flavours or the changes in these chemicals that may occur with heating and/or interacting with other ingredients and the device components. “Berry” <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/30/2/185">flavour</a> alone could be made from <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/suppl/2020/02/10/tobaccocontrol-2019-055447.DC1/tobaccocontrol-2019-055447supp001_data_supplement.pdf">more than 35</a> different chemicals. </p>
<p>Flavouring chemicals may be “food grade” or classified as safe-to-eat. However mixing them into e-liquids, heating and inhaling them is a very different type of exposure, compared to eating them.</p>
<p>One example is benzaldehyde (an almond flavouring). When this is inhaled, it <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00171">impairs</a> the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750023000380">immune function</a> of lung cells. This could potentially reduce a vaper’s ability to deal with other inhaled toxins, or respiratory infections. </p>
<p>Benzaldehyde is one of only <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00595">eight</a> banned e-liquid ingredients in Australia. The list is so short because we don’t have enough information on the health effects if inhaled of other flavouring chemicals, and their interactions with other e-liquid ingredients.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1670806592961355777"}"></div></p>
<h2>Where to next?</h2>
<p>For us to better assess the health risks of vapes, we need to learn more about:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>what happens when flavour chemicals are heated and inhaled</p></li>
<li><p>the interactions between different e-liquid ingredients</p></li>
<li><p>what other contaminants may be present in e-liquids</p></li>
<li><p>new, potentially harmful, substances in e-cigarettes.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Finally, we need to know more about how people use e-cigarettes so we can better understand and quantify the health risks in the real world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210462/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Larcombe has previously received funding for e-cigarette research from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Lung Foundation Australia, Minderoo Foundation, Health Department of Western Australia and Asthma Foundation of Western Australia. The funders played no role in the conduct of the research. He is also a member of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health (ACOSH).</span></em></p>It’s not just the ingredients we should be concerned about. The devices themselves release chemicals that end up in our blood and urine.Alexander Larcombe, Associate Professor and Head of Respiratory Environmental Health, Telethon Kids InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1973252023-01-25T21:02:21Z2023-01-25T21:02:21ZHave you been labelled at work by your gender, age or ethnicity? Here’s how those labels can delegitimize you<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504502/original/file-20230113-25-hwndow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=46%2C0%2C6214%2C4177&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Women who are seen as assertive can often be negatively labelled at work.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you or a colleague ever been negatively labelled at work, whether it’s based on your gender, age, race or ethnicity? Labels can often be mundane because we use them spontaneously on an everyday basis. But they can also be far from innocuous. Labels convey value judgments and serve to control the behaviour of the people they’re applied to.</p>
<p>My explanations of labelling draw on research, including my own. I head a <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/jmsb/faculty/claudine-mangen.html">research program</a> on gender inequalities and organizational leadership at Concordia University. My research is concerned with everyday practices <a href="https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v31i3.128517">like labelling</a>, how they arise and what they do.</p>
<h2>Differing expectations</h2>
<p>To understand labels, we have to look at how we interact with the world around us. We make sense of this world by using <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-world-is-getting-exponentially-more-complex-heres-how-we-navigate-it-188554">mental shortcuts</a> that enable us to save our mental resources. <a href="https://theconversation.com/bias-be-gone-can-our-unconscious-prejudices-be-overcome-175636">Shortcuts draw on categories</a>; one of the most salient categories is gender.</p>
<p>We instantaneously and spontaneously categorize people around us in gender categories, relying on information accumulated throughout our lives. Categories of course go beyond gender and also include race, age, ethnicity and so on.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505471/original/file-20230119-26-5e9z7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black woman stands at a table writing on a paper. Other people are seated around the table observing." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505471/original/file-20230119-26-5e9z7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505471/original/file-20230119-26-5e9z7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505471/original/file-20230119-26-5e9z7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505471/original/file-20230119-26-5e9z7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505471/original/file-20230119-26-5e9z7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505471/original/file-20230119-26-5e9z7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505471/original/file-20230119-26-5e9z7e.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">When we assign a person to the woman category, we are inclined to see her in a caregiving role rather than an agentic role like a leader.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As we assign people to gender categories, we evaluate them in their roles, notably whether these roles are consistent with their gender category. During this evaluation process, we draw on social norms about women and men, who they are and what they do. Today’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-elections-matter-national-child-care-plan-could-create-workplace-gender-equality-169307">social norms</a> continue to <a href="https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/id/eprint/987047/">view men and women differently</a>: women are expected to act communally and care for others; men are expected to be agentic and assert themselves. </p>
<p>As a result, when we assign a person to the woman category, we are inclined to see her in a caregiving role rather than an agentic role like a leader. Our beliefs are gender-biased: if she had been a man, we would have attributed a different role to her. </p>
<p>When we see others behave in ways that deviate from the roles associated with their gender categories, we often draw on labels that designate this deviance. For instance, suppose we see a woman who is assertive. Since we categorized her as a woman, we expect her to be caregiving; we see her assertive behaviour as a deviance from this caregiving behaviour. We might then draw on a label that identifies and designates this deviance. </p>
<h2>Labels matter</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v31i3.128517">Women leaders I interviewed</a> told me how they have been labelled “bitch.” The names of interview participants I cite below have been changed to protect their anonymity. </p>
<p>For instance, Leslie explained: “Women are still perceived as the ones who should be softer, caretaking; everything is just from the heart, and doting and nurturing.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504503/original/file-20230113-11-61gavq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man and woman sit at a table giving each other sideward looks." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504503/original/file-20230113-11-61gavq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504503/original/file-20230113-11-61gavq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504503/original/file-20230113-11-61gavq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504503/original/file-20230113-11-61gavq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504503/original/file-20230113-11-61gavq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504503/original/file-20230113-11-61gavq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504503/original/file-20230113-11-61gavq.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">When we see others behave in ways that deviate from the roles associated with their gender categories, we often draw on labels that designate this deviance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When women do not meet expectations around caretaking, they are penalized for their deviance. Leslie pointed out: “When you don’t fill that role, and people expect you to fill that role going back to expectations, you’re seen as a tough, sorry to say it, bitch.” </p>
<p>Tina argued that men do not have similar caretaking expectations: “We all know a guy who’s tough — he’s assertive, he’s confident. A woman who’s tough, she’s a bitch.”</p>
<p>Labels have consequences for those who are labelled. When labels are used to designate behaviour that deviates from an expectation, they can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221123745">delegitimize and undermine people</a>. </p>
<p>Consider again the women leaders I interviewed. Labels that emphasize their gender obscure their other identities and roles. In other words, the labels suggest that their identities as women and leaders are incompatible.</p>
<p>The interview participants reacted in three ways to their labelling. They accepted it and made efforts to be seen as nice. They also rejected it, questioning the person who did the labelling. Finally, they sometimes ignored it. Either way, they spent time and energy dealing with labels that went to the core of who they are.</p>
<p>There are many other labels that we often use, many of which do the same thing as the “bitch” label that I illustrated. We do not question labels because they often seem so mundane and spontaneous. Therein, however, lies the danger of labels: they constitute a way of putting people down and delegitimizing them. </p>
<p>We should observe ourselves and question why we use the labels we do. What are our expectations of the people we label? If they don’t meet our expectations, rather than blaming them through a label, perhaps we should question our expectations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197325/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claudine Mangen receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>Labels that reflect our gender, racial or age-specific biases can often undermine others.Claudine Mangen, RBC Professor in Responsible Organizations and Associate Professor, Concordia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1866222022-07-21T12:26:41Z2022-07-21T12:26:41ZFood expiration dates don’t have much science behind them – a food safety researcher explains another way to know what’s too old to eat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473429/original/file-20220711-26-xctoxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C0%2C5925%2C3974&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Without obvious signs of contamination like the mold in this jam, consumers use expiration dates to decide whether to keep or throw away food. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/mold-on-the-breakfast-jam-for-a-bad-start-to-the-royalty-free-image/1067343156">Ralf Geithe via iStock/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Humans get sick with listeria infections, or listeriosis, from eating soil-contaminated food, undercooked meat or dairy products that are raw, or unpasteurized. Listeria can cause convulsions, coma, miscarriage and birth defects. And it’s the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3201%2Feid1701.P11101">third leading cause</a> of food poisoning deaths in the U.S. </p>
<p>Avoiding unseen food hazards is the reason people often check the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12086">dates on food packaging</a>. And printed with the month and year is often one of a dizzying array of phrases: “best by,” “use by,” “best if used before,” “best if used by,” “guaranteed fresh until,” “freeze by” and even a “born on” label applied to some beer.</p>
<p>People think of them as expiration dates, or the date at which a food should go in the trash. But the dates have little to do with when food expires, or becomes less safe to eat. I am <a href="https://health.usf.edu/publichealth/overviewcoph/faculty/jill-roberts">a microbiologist and public health researcher</a>, and I have used molecular epidemiology <a href="https://doi.org/10.1128%2FJCM.44.1.225-226.2006">to study the spread of bacteria</a> in food. A more science-based product dating system could make it easier for people to differentiate foods they can safely eat from those that could be hazardous.</p>
<h2>Costly confusion</h2>
<p>The United States Department of Agriculture reports that in 2020 the average American household spent <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings">12% of its income on food</a>. But a lot of food is simply thrown away, despite being perfectly safe to eat. The USDA Economic Research Center reports that <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf?v=9125.7">nearly 31% of all available food</a> is never consumed. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf">Historically high food prices</a> make the problem of waste seem all the more alarming.</p>
<p>The current food labeling system may be to blame for much of the waste. The FDA reports <a href="https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/confused-date-labels-packaged-foods">consumer confusion around product dating labels</a> is likely responsible for around 20% of the food wasted in the home, costing an estimated US$161 billion per year.</p>
<p>It’s logical to believe that date labels are there for safety reasons, since the federal government enforces rules for including <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2012-N-1210-0875">nutrition and ingredient information</a> on food labels. Passed in 1938 and continuously modified since, the <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2008-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2008-title21-vol2-part101.xml">Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act</a> requires food labels to inform consumers of nutrition and ingredients in packaged foods, including the amount of salt, sugar and fat it contains. </p>
<p>The dates on those food packages, however, are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Rather, they come from food producers. And they may not be based on food safety science.</p>
<p>For example, a food producer may <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/dating-game-IB.pdf">survey consumers</a> in a focus group to pick a “use by” date that is six months after the product was produced because 60% of the focus group no longer liked the taste. Smaller manufacturers of a similar food might play copycat and put the <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/food-product-dating">same date on their product.</a></p>
<h2>More interpretations</h2>
<p>One industry group, the Food Marketing Institute and Grocery Manufacturers Association, suggests that its members <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2017/170215">mark food “best if used by”</a> to indicate how long the food is safe to eat, and “use by” to indicate when food becomes unsafe. But using these more nuanced marks is voluntary. And although the recommendation is motivated by a desire to cut down on food waste, it is not yet clear if this recommended change has had any impact.</p>
<p>A joint study by the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/dating-game-report.pdf">Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic and the National Resources Defense Council</a> recommends the elimination of dates aimed at consumers, citing potential confusion and waste. Instead, the research suggests manufacturers and distributors use “production” or “pack” dates, along with “sell-by” dates, aimed at supermarkets and other retailers. The dates would indicate to retailers the amount of time a product will remain at high quality. </p>
<p>The FDA considers some products “potentially hazardous foods” if they have characteristics that <a href="https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Evaluation-and-Definition-of-Potentially-Hazardous-Foods.pdf">allow microbes to flourish</a>, like moisture and an abundance of nutrients that feed microbes. These foods include chicken, milk and sliced tomatoes, all of which have been <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffmicb.2019.02667">linked to serious foodborne outbreaks</a>. But there is currently no difference between the date labeling used on these foods and that used on more stable food items.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A plastic bag of precooked, stuffed pasta lies with its label face up, reading 'Use by 22 November' and 'keep refrigerated.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.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">Expiration dates could be more meaningful if they were based on scientific studies of a food’s rate of nutrient loss or microbial growth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/packet-of-pasta-royalty-free-image/496770672">Thomas Faull/iStock via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scientific formula</h2>
<p>Infant formula is the only food product with a “use by” date that is both government regulated and scientifically determined. It is routinely lab tested for contamination. But infant formula also undergoes nutrition tests to determine how long it take the nutrients - particularly protein – to break down. To prevent malnutrition in babies, the “use by” date on baby formula indicates when it’s no longer nutritious.</p>
<p>Nutrients in foods are relatively easy to measure. The <a href="https://www.fda.gov/science-research/field-science-and-laboratories/southeast-food-and-feed-laboratory-sffl">FDA already does this regularly</a>. The agency issues warnings to food producers when the nutrient contents listed on their labels don’t match what FDA’s lab finds.</p>
<p>Microbial studies, like the ones we food safety researchers work on, are also a scientific approach to meaningful date labeling on foods. In our lab, a microbial study might involve leaving a perishable food out to spoil and measuring how much bacteria grows in it over time. Scientists also do another kind of microbial study by watching how long it takes microbes like listeria <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00305-2">to grow to dangerous levels</a> after intentionally adding the microbes to food to watch what they do, noting such details as growth in the amount of bacteria over time and when there’s enough to cause illness. </p>
<h2>Consumers on their own</h2>
<p>Determining the shelf life of food with scientific data on both its nutrition and its safety could drastically decrease waste and save money as food gets more expensive.</p>
<p>But in the absence of a uniform food dating system, consumers could <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-avoid-food-borne-illness-a-nutritionist-explains-153185">rely on their eyes and noses</a>, deciding to discard the fuzzy bread, green cheese or off-smelling bag of salad. People also might pay close attention to the dates for more perishable foods, like cold cuts, in which microbes grow easily. They can also find <a href="https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts">guidance at FoodSafety.gov</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jill Roberts 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>Current expiration date system leads to confused consumers and wasted food.Jill Roberts, Associate Professor of Global Health, University of South FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1699982021-11-21T13:20:58Z2021-11-21T13:20:58ZIndica and sativa labels are largely meaningless when it comes to cannabis complexities<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432299/original/file-20211117-23-cj20ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6000%2C3376&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cannabis is a complex plant, ideally labelling of cannabis products should accurately reflect the combinations of psychoactive ingredients present in a strain.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 175px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/indica-and-sativa-labels-are-largely-meaningless-when-it-comes-to-cannabis-complexities" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Indica and sativa are commonly used to describe cannabis strains, but what’s the difference between these two labels?</p>
<p>Almost <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2020002/article/00002-eng.htm">half of all Canadians have tried cannabis at some point in their lives</a>. If you’re one of them, you’ve probably been confronted with the choice between buying strains labelled indica or sativa.</p>
<p>Some people are adamant that <a href="https://www.thrillist.com/lifestyle/nation/indica-vs-sativa-differences-in-effects-and-appearance">indica strains are sedative with earthy aromas</a>. In contrast, sativa strains are supposedly energizing with sweet aromas. However, the extent to which indica and sativa labels actually capture meaningful information is unclear.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-weed-branding-is-essential-for-cannabis-companies-87400">'Where's the weed?' Branding is essential for cannabis companies</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Detailed strain analyses</h2>
<p>Our team of researchers at Dalhousie University worked with Bedrocan International, a Dutch medical cannabis company, to study hundreds of cannabis strains with indica and sativa labels. We measured the chemical compounds produced by each strain. This included not only the major psychoactive cannabinoids like THC and CBD but also the terpenes that give cannabis its distinctive aromas. We also measured the genetic profiles and were then able to examine the chemical and genetic differences between strains.</p>
<p>If labels describing cannabis strains do in fact represent two distinct groups of cannabis, then the differences should be reflected by chemical and genetic differences. Our study, published in <em>Nature Plants</em>, found that indica and sativa labels are largely meaningless. </p>
<p>It was frequently the case that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-01003-y">strains labelled indica were just as closely related to strains labelled sativa as they were to other strains labelled indica</a>.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/46700/element/4/459">example that illustrates the inconsistent use of these labels</a> is that in 1999, a cannabis strain named “AK 47” won the <a href="https://www.cannabiscupwinners.com/winner-links/2-cool-cannabis-hemp-links/37-seeds-online.html">Sativa Cup</a> in the Cannabis Cup. The same strain went on to win the <a href="https://www.cannabiscupwinners.com/2015-12-03-14-51-30/high-times-cannabis-cup/cannabis-cup-2003.html">Indica Cup</a> in the same competition four years later.</p>
<p>Not only did we find that indica/sativa labelling is misleading, but so are the names given to strains. For example, we found that two strains both named “OG Kush” were more similar to other strains with different names than they were to one another. Overall, strain names are often not reliable indicators of a plant’s genetic identity and chemical profile.</p>
<h2>Broken telephone</h2>
<p>If you’ve ever played a game of telephone, you’ll know how easily words can get twisted. Usually by the end of the game, the words are completely different from when it started. The way in which indica and sativa have been used over the years is similar to a very long game of broken telephone. </p>
<p>At one point in time, indica and sativa may have been used to describe two distinct species of cannabis. Over time, the two species likely hybridized to the extent that most of the cannabis grown and consumed today is a mashup of the two ancestral lineages. However, the use of indica and sativa has persisted as vernacular labels and have today taken on new meaning to describe psychoactive effects, aromas and morphologies.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432300/original/file-20211117-21-su2u95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An older woman smokes a joint and smiles" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432300/original/file-20211117-21-su2u95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432300/original/file-20211117-21-su2u95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432300/original/file-20211117-21-su2u95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432300/original/file-20211117-21-su2u95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432300/original/file-20211117-21-su2u95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432300/original/file-20211117-21-su2u95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432300/original/file-20211117-21-su2u95.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">People consume cannabis for a variety of reasons, including recreational and therapeutic purposes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In certain cases, we found weak correlations between indica and sativa labels and a small number of the aromatic terpenes. Strains labelled indica tended to have higher amounts of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/myrcene">the terpene myrcene</a>, which is thought to contribute to sedation and the <a href="https://cannabis.net/blog/history/what-does-it-mean-to-be-couchlocked">more intense “couch-lock” effect</a>.</p>
<p>On the other hand, strains labelled sativa had higher amounts of sweet and herbal terpenes, like farnesene and bergamotene. These findings echo what cannabis consumers have long said about the differences between the two labels. </p>
<p>We have a hunch that due to the absence of strict naming and pedigree tracking, producers have been assigning labels to cannabis based primarily on aroma. Considering the historically clandestine nature of cannabis breeding, it’s unsurprising that labelling would have been relegated to more subjective methods, like smell, rather than a more consistent system that reliably distinguishes strains.</p>
<h2>Improving labelling</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432301/original/file-20211117-19-lgtso3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An employee arranges a variety of products at a cannabis store." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432301/original/file-20211117-19-lgtso3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432301/original/file-20211117-19-lgtso3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432301/original/file-20211117-19-lgtso3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432301/original/file-20211117-19-lgtso3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432301/original/file-20211117-19-lgtso3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432301/original/file-20211117-19-lgtso3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432301/original/file-20211117-19-lgtso3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">After cannabis was legalized, a flood of cannabis strains and products entered the market, from consumables to oils and foodstuffs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Canada moves into its third year of legalized cannabis consumption, there is a need to revamp how cannabis is labelled, and clearly communicate its effects. The current way we label and name cannabis strains appears to fall short of the labelling standards applied to other agricultural crops.</p>
<p>For instance, imagine walking into a grocery store and buying a crunchy Honeycrisp apple, only to realize when you got home that it was in fact a less crisp McIntosh apple. Unlike apples, cannabis produces psychoactive compounds — the inconsistency of these labels could be very frustrating. From a medical standpoint, improper labelling could lead to negative or undesirable health outcomes. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/give-cannabis-producers-more-packaging-and-labelling-flexibility-152727">Give cannabis producers more packaging and labelling flexibility</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Cannabis is an incredibly diverse crop that produces over <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192247">one hundred aromatic</a> and psychoactive compounds with distinct aromas and effects. Adding to the complexity of cannabis compounds, research has also indicated the possibility of an “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01238.x">entourage effect</a>,” whereby terpenes interact with cannabinoids to mediate different psychoactive effects. </p>
<p>Reducing cannabis to two categories does little to capture this incredible versatility and potential. We are likely better off abandoning the use of the terms sativa and indica altogether, and instead labelling cannabis with the quantities of key compounds that have medicinal effects or are known to affect consumer preferences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169998/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sophie Watts receives funding through a Vanier Scholarship from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Bedrocan International funded the research referenced in this article.</span></em></p>Cannabis labelling is often misleading. Labelling cannabis products with quantities of key compounds will help consumers make informed decisions.Sophie Watts, PhD student, Plant, Food and Environmental Sciences, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1433682020-07-30T08:11:51Z2020-07-30T08:11:51ZHow South African food companies go about shaping public health policy in their favour<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349971/original/file-20200728-23-bxowkj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Government should be held accountable for its role in addressing obesity and diet-related diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, in South Africa.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Obesity and <a href="https://africacheck.org/fbcheck/diet-related-problems-obesity-on-rise-in-south-africa-report-finds/#:%7E:text=But%20it%20adds%20that%20the,%2C%20nutrient%20deficiencies%20and%20stunting%E2%80%9D.">diet-related diseases</a>, such as type 2 diabetes, are <a href="http://www.health.gov.za/index.php/gf-tb-program/323-world-obesity-day-2016">major public health problems</a> in South Africa. But many in the food industry strongly oppose <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/204176/9789241510066_eng.pdf;jsessionid=D51CE10CDBC6D77F9D71DBE26E7C6307?sequence=1">globally recommended policies</a> that could address these issues. Such policies include restrictions on marketing of junk food to children and improvements to food labelling.</p>
<p>In a new <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-020-01407-1">study</a>, we identify strategies used by the food and beverage industry in South Africa to influence public health policies. The strategies include building close relationships with government departments, influencing scientific research and sponsoring community events.</p>
<p>Two years ago South Africa increased <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5747348/">taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages</a> despite <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-business-misrepresented-evidence-the-south-african-sugar-tax-story-125421">strong opposition</a> from industry. Health experts fear that those with vested interests could thwart or delay other initiatives designed to protect people’s health. There is a <a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=South%20African%20Sugar%20Industry%20Crushed%20by%20Not%20So%20Sweet%20Tax_Pretoria_South%20Africa%20-%20Republic%20of_3-5-2019#:%7E:text=During%20the%20budget%20speech%20in,ml%20still%20remains%20levy%20free.">proposal</a>, for example, to increase the sugary drinks tax by 5%. There are also efforts to put new <a href="https://businesstech.co.za/news/lifestyle/301266/government-wants-to-introduce-warning-labels-for-junk-food-in-south-africa/">warning labels</a> on unhealthy foods and <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/analysis/opinion-extra-dip-why-advertising-junk-food-must-be-strictly-regulated-20200415">restrict their marketing</a>.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-020-01407-1">study</a> focused on the political strategies used by ten major food and beverage industry actors in South Africa in 2018 and 2019. We identified the tactics they used by examining publicly available information, such as company reports, media releases and government documents. </p>
<p>We found 107 examples of food industry practices designed to influence public health policy in their favour.</p>
<p>The strategies we observed echo the <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002125">tactics</a> used by tobacco companies around the world to counter recommended public health policies.</p>
<h2>Partnerships between the food industry and government</h2>
<p>The actors we looked at included the biggest food producers in the country as well as global beverage companies. </p>
<p>We found several high-profile partnerships between companies and some government departments. These included the departments of basic education, sport & recreation, and health. Company-branded <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/pioneer-foods-partners-29-aug-2019-0000">school breakfast programmes</a> and <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/basic-education-nestl%C3%A9-healthier-kids-initiative-15-may-2018-0000">education campaigns</a> were among the initiatives. </p>
<p>The food industry also sponsored a range of community events. These were usually heavily branded, with promotional material targeted at children. This contradicts <a href="https://www.ifballiance.org/commitments/responsible-marketing-to-children">industry commitments</a> not to market to children under 12 years old.</p>
<p>Many corporate-sponsored community programmes focused on poverty alleviation and under-nutrition.</p>
<p>We also found examples where the food industry <a href="https://sasa.org.za/social-investment/">donated sugar</a> to food security efforts. </p>
<p>These partnerships between the government and the food industry could compromise the credibility, independence and priorities of ministries. For example, donations of sugar are likely to be in <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/11-10-2016-who-urges-global-action-to-curtail-consumption-and-health-impacts-of-sugary-drinks">opposition</a> to the objective of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6089280/#:%7E:text=Abstract-,Introduction,inform%20health%20planning%20and%20policy.">reducing rates</a> of type 2 diabetes and obesity.</p>
<p>We also found examples of the food industry <a href="http://www.sasugar.co.za/jan-march-2019/industry-in-crisis!">lobbying government</a> policymakers. This was largely in opposition to the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages that was <a href="https://www.sars.gov.za/ClientSegments/Customs-Excise/Excise/Pages/Health%20Promotion%20Levy%20on%20Sugary%20Beverages.aspx">implemented</a> in April 2018.</p>
<p>Food industry actors emphasised their role in the economy, with a focus on <a href="http://www.bevsa.co.za/media-feed/statements/health-promotions-levy-net-negative-impact-south-african-non-alcoholic-beverage-industry">job creation</a>. They ignored the cost that diet-related ill health has on the health system.</p>
<p>In addition, they framed the conversation on disease prevention as being about <a href="http://www.bevsa.co.za/sugartax">physical activity</a> and <a href="https://www.nestle-esar.com/media/pressreleases/nestle-and-world-chiefs">individual responsibility</a>. This language diverts attention away from the harmfulness of unhealthy food products. It also shifts the blame onto consumers.</p>
<p>We concluded from our findings that the food industry’s tactics were <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25988272/">designed</a> to reduce the likelihood that the government would adopt global recommendations to tackle rising obesity rates and improve population diets. These include restrictions on marketing of junk food to children and improvements to food labelling.</p>
<p>Industry tactics also increase the chances that the solutions favoured by the industry are adopted by the government. This is despite <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25735606/">evidence</a> that the solutions preferred by industry, such as self-regulation of marketing to children, are much less effective than other solutions, such as mandatory restrictions on marketing unhealthy food products.</p>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>There are several <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e034082">mechanisms</a> that could be used to counter industry influence and interference in policymaking.</p>
<p>As a start, the government could make more information available to the public. This could be done through listing <a href="https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/donations-and-gift-disclosure/disclosure-of-political-donations">political donations</a> and gifts to government officials, publicising the <a href="https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/publications/ministers-diary-disclosures/">diaries</a> of ministers and other senior government employees, and publicly releasing <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/campaigns/vision-healthy-canada/healthy-eating/transparency-stakeholder-communications-healthy-eating-initiatives.html">correspondence</a> between corporations and government officials.</p>
<p>In academia and civil society there could be public disclosure of potential conflicts of interests. Grants and awards from corporations could be disclosed.</p>
<p>Given the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6089280/#:%7E:text=Abstract-,Introduction,inform%20health%20planning%20and%20policy.">urgency of the problem</a>, the government needs to be held accountable for its role in addressing obesity and diet-related diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, in South Africa.</p>
<p>And the food industry should refrain from using practices that may delay the adoption and implementation of globally recommended public health policies. </p>
<p>The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of strong government leadership for health. Accordingly, it is important to strengthen existing mechanisms to manage industry influence.</p>
<p>This could lead the way to stronger policies that make a long-term difference to the health of South Africans.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143368/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Sacks receives funding from the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Crosbie received funding from the National Institute of Health and the Global Health Advocacy Incubator unrelated to this.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>This study was funded by the Bloomberg Philanthropies.</span></em></p>The food industry’s tactics are designed to reduce the likelihood of the government adopting global recommendations to tackle obesity.Gary Sacks, Associate Professor, Deakin UniversityEric Crosbie, Assistant Professor, University of Nevada, RenoMelissa Mialon, Honorary Research Fellow, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1288382020-01-03T13:49:14Z2020-01-03T13:49:14ZBuyers should beware of organic labels on nonfood products<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308336/original/file-20200101-11951-6ipelk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=71%2C44%2C5910%2C2389&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Be skeptical of organic claims on cleaning products and other nonfood goods.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/eco-blank-design-packaging-natural-bottles-1432036151">Pinkasevich/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Product labels offer valuable information to consumers, but <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-has-ceded-control-of-its-site-the-result-thousands-of-banned-unsafe-or-mislabeled-products-11566564990">manufacturers can misuse them</a> to increase profits. This is particularly true for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling">organic label</a>. </p>
<p>Two recent decisions by the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/">U.S. Federal Trade Commission</a>, which protects consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices, signal that the agency is paying more attention to misuse of the word “organic” on nonfood items, such as clothing and personal care products. In my <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nvnsqIoAAAAJ&hl=en">research on food and environmental policy</a>, I have found that federal authority in this area is less clear than it is for food products. In my view, the FTC’s interest is long overdue.</p>
<h2>The rules are mostly for foods</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308335/original/file-20200101-11909-111h1xh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308335/original/file-20200101-11909-111h1xh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308335/original/file-20200101-11909-111h1xh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308335/original/file-20200101-11909-111h1xh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308335/original/file-20200101-11909-111h1xh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308335/original/file-20200101-11909-111h1xh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308335/original/file-20200101-11909-111h1xh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308335/original/file-20200101-11909-111h1xh.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 USDA organic seal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic4colorsealJPG.jpg">USDA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unlike other marketing claims such as “healthy” or “natural,” “organic” is defined and regulated by the federal government. Organic food products undergo a rigorous certification process to comply with the <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program">National Organic Program</a>, or NOP, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. </p>
<p>Only agricultural products that contain at least 95% certified organic ingredients meet these standards and can display the USDA organic seal or use the phrase “made with organic products.” USDA organic certification is considered the gold standard among food labels, and has significant cachet in the marketplace. In 2018 the U.S. organic food market was <a href="https://ota.com/news/press-releases/20699">valued at US$49.9 billion</a> and accounted for <a href="https://ota.com/news/press-releases/20699">almost 6% of nationwide food sales</a>.</p>
<p>All sorts of nonfood products also make organic claims, including textiles, household cleaners, personal care products and services such as house cleaning and dry cleaning. Nonfood products are a much smaller market, but their sales jumped by 10.6% to <a href="https://ota.com/news/press-releases/20699">$4.6 billion</a> in 2018. While they may appear to promote healthy lifestyles, the word “organic” is less meaningful when used on nonfood products and more subject to abuse.</p>
<h2>Organic nonfood products with agricultural ingredients</h2>
<p>While the NOP regulates organic claims for agricultural food products, its authority over nonfood products is limited. Textiles, for example, are made from agricultural products like cotton, wool or flax. Textiles made from agricultural ingredients that are “produced in full compliance with the NOP regulations” <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/975753/nop-pm-11-14-labelingoftextiles.pdf">may be labeled as NOP certified organic</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308334/original/file-20200101-11939-at3xxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308334/original/file-20200101-11939-at3xxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308334/original/file-20200101-11939-at3xxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308334/original/file-20200101-11939-at3xxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308334/original/file-20200101-11939-at3xxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308334/original/file-20200101-11939-at3xxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308334/original/file-20200101-11939-at3xxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308334/original/file-20200101-11939-at3xxn.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">USDA regulates organic claims for goods made with plant materials such as cotton.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/ajWAz">Scoobyfoo/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Personal care products can also be made from agricultural ingredients, such as flower or fruit extracts and oils. USDA allows personal care products that contain agricultural ingredients and meet the USDA/NOP organic standards to be <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/975753/nop_organiccosmeticsfactsheet.pdf">certified organic</a>. As a result, you can find mosquito repellent, shampoo and face cream bearing the USDA certified organic seal.</p>
<h2>Consumer confusion</h2>
<p>Beyond these limited categories, products with non-agricultural ingredients <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/975753/consumer_perception_of_recycled_content_and_organic_2016-08-10_-_published_on_ftc-gov.pdf">do not generally fall within the NOP program</a>, and the USDA does not regulate them. For example, the agency has no authority over cosmetics that do not contain agricultural ingredients or meet NOP organic standards. Cosmetics are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, which has expressed little interest in policing organic claims. </p>
<p>The Federal Trade Commission can investigate and sue companies making false, misleading or deceptive organic claims, but until recently it has been <a href="https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19336">reluctant to do so</a>, partly to avoid duplicating the USDA’s efforts. This began to change in 2015 when the two agencies conducted a study on public understanding of organic claims for nonfood products. They found that consumers were confused about whether these claims meant the same thing as claims on food products, and did not understand that USDA had <a href="https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19336">limited authority</a> in this area. </p>
<p>When the agencies co-hosted a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/10/consumer-perceptions-organic-claims-ftc-usda-roundtable">roundtable in 2016</a> on this issue and solicited public input, they received <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2016/08/initiative-669">hundreds of comments</a> from individuals, trade associations and other interested groups. One individual wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I am deeply concerned about the flagrant misuse of the term "organic” in the personal care products industry. The term “organic” should mean the same thing whether applied to personal care products or to food. I am also very troubled that companies that deliberately mislabel their products <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2016/09/26/comment-14">seem to go unpunished</a>.“</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The nonprofit <a href="https://www.cornucopia.org/">Cornucopia Institute</a>, which acts as an organic industry watchdog, submitted results of a survey it conducted about the word organic. One question asked consumers whether a shampoo labeled organic was certified by the USDA. Approximately 27% of respondents said yes, 55% said no and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2016/10/00028-129259.pdf">the rest were unsure</a>. </p>
<p>The Institute urged the FTC to "harmonize label regulation
with the [NOP organic] standards in a simple way: Prevent the term ‘organic’ from being used on products and services that generally fall <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2016/10/00028-129260.pdf">outside the scope of the USDA’s National Organic Program</a>.” </p>
<p>In my view, this is unlikely to happen. But one useful step would be for the FTC to include information about organic claims in its <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-issues-revised-green-guides/greenguides.pdf">Green Guide</a>, which is designed to help marketers avoid making misleading or deceptive environmental claims. </p>
<h2>Recent violations</h2>
<p>In 2017 the FTC stepped in for the first time to investigate deceptive organic claims on baby mattresses. According to a consent order filed with the agency, Moonlight Slumber, LLC made <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1623128moonlightslumberorder.pdf">unsubstantiated representations</a> on its mattresses, including that the mattresses were “organic.” In fact, the company’s products were made of <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/09/illinois-firm-barred-making-misleading-baby-mattress-claims">a majority of non-organic materials</a>, mainly polyurethane, a plastic produced almost entirely from <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1623128moonlightslumbercomplaint.pdf">petroleum-based raw materials</a>. </p>
<p>In October 2019 the FTC fined another company, Truly Organic, $1.76 million for falsely advertising its body washes, lotions, baby, hair care, bath and cleaning products as “<a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/truly-organic-not-really-says-ftc">certified organic,” “USDA certified organic,” and “Truly Organic</a>.” Despite having some ingredients that could be organically sourced, Truly Organic products either contained ingredients that were not approved by NOP or contained ingredients that were not organically sourced. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s6RMs7nDJhs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The FTC charged Truly Organic with altering documents to make it appear that the company’s products were USDA-certified organic.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nonetheless, the market for natural and organic personal care products continues to grow, as evidenced by the popularity of celebrity brands like Gwyneth Paltrow’s <a href="https://goop.com/">Goop</a> and Jessica Alba’s <a href="https://www.honest.com/">Honest Company</a>. Demand for this category of goods is projected to reach <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/11/16/p-gs-gillette-going-natural-with-pure-shave-gel.html">$17.6 billion by 2021</a>. </p>
<p>Consumers want clean, chemical-free and organic products, but they don’t always get them. Many personal care companies have been cited for <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/01/natural-or-organic-cosmetics-don-t-trust-marketing-claims">misleading claims</a>. As examples, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/645665387/gwyneth-paltrows-goop-agrees-to-pay-145-000-to-settle-false-advertising-lawsuit">Goop</a> and the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honest-alba-settlement-idUSKBN18X2Y4">Honest Company</a> have settled lawsuits that accused them respectively of making misleading health claims and false advertising. </p>
<p>Instead of relying on consumers to bring these claims to court, I believe regulators should be more engaged, particularly the FTC. Without effective oversight, unscrupulous retailers have an incentive to continue cashing in on the organic seal.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklysmart">You can get our highlights each weekend</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128838/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Morath is a board member of the Citizens Environmental Coalition, a Houston non-profit whose mission is to foster dialogue, education, and collaboration on environmental issues in the Houston/Gulf Coast region. </span></em></p>What does it mean to call a nonfood product like lipstick organic? Federal regulators allow such claims, but have set few standards defining them.Sarah J. Morath, Clinical Associate Professor of Law and Director of Lawyering Skills and Strategies, University of HoustonLicensed 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.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/570602016-03-31T23:57:03Z2016-03-31T23:57:03ZFree-range egg labelling scrambles the message for consumers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117026/original/image-20160331-9712-ci1pci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eggs cartons will need to show stocking density on the carton.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Egg image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian governments have agreed on a <a href="https://www.finance.nsw.gov.au/about-us/media-releases/agreement-reached-free-range-egg-labelling-standards">new national standard</a> for <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/ConsultationsandReviews/Consultations/2015/Free-range-egg-labelling">labelling “free range” eggs</a>, in a bid to clear up <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2014.980879">years of consumer confusion</a>. </p>
<p>The standard will be legally enforceable under <a href="http://consumerlaw.gov.au/">Australian consumer law</a> from next year. It states that eggs can be labelled free range if hens have “meaningful and regular access to an outdoor range” and an outdoor “stocking density” of up to 10,000 birds per hectare. The stocking density of the hens – the number of hens per hectare - will also be labelled on the pack.</p>
<p>The new standard also follows <a href="https://accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-releases-guide-to-provide-clarity-on-%E2%80%98free-range%E2%80%99-egg-claims">action by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission</a> (ACCC) against several egg producers, who it alleged had misled consumers about whether their eggs were truly free range. </p>
<p>But the new definition of free range could perpetuate confusion and controversy for consumers.</p>
<h2>Outdoor access?</h2>
<p>Under the standard, eggs labelled free range will need to come from hens that have access to the outdoors. But the hens won’t necessarily actually go outdoors. </p>
<p>Most free-range eggs on supermarket shelves come from production systems where hens are housed in large sheds of 20,000 or more birds, with access to the outdoors via openings along the sides of the sheds. A relatively small number of birds may be outdoors at any time, depending on a range of factors including the size of the flock, the design of the barn, the number of openings, and the conditions outdoors. </p>
<p>These large-scale free-range production systems <a href="http://www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org/research-results/">do not necessarily improve the health and welfare of hens compared with barn systems</a> (sheds with no openings to the outdoors) or “enriched cages” (group cages designed to enable hens to express some natural behaviours). </p>
<p>The conditions that produce free-range eggs at large scale and low price will inevitably lead to <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5140400&fileId=S004393399100017X">overcrowding and inadequate supervision at times</a>, and this may lead to cannibalism and other problems.</p>
<p>Many consumer and animal welfare advocates have argued that the term “free range” should be reserved for smaller systems, where hens range on pasture and where all hens are able to express natural behaviours such as foraging, pecking and dust bathing. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://accc.gov.au/system/files/1029_Free%20range%20Eggs%20guidelines_FA.pdf">ACCC‘s view</a> is that eggs labelled free range should come from egg farms where “most hens move about freely outdoors on most ordinary days”. </p>
<p>Large producers have argued that the ACCC’s definition of free range is unworkable and that their production systems are designed to give hens “<a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/%7E/media/Treasury/Consultations%20and%20Reviews/Consultations/2015/Free%20range%20egg%20labelling/Submissions/PDF/Egg_Farmers_Australia.ashx">the freedom to choose whether or not to go outside</a>”. The new standard supports this position, enabling eggs to be labelled as free range as long as hens have “meaningful and regular access” to the outdoors.</p>
<p>However, regular access doesn’t necessarily mean that hens will regularly go outside. And if they don’t go outside, how meaningful is their access?</p>
<h2>How many hens?</h2>
<p>The stocking density of hens has also been a controversial issue in the debate about free range. The <a href="https://www.choice.com.au/food-and-drink/meat-fish-and-eggs/eggs/articles/what-free-range-eggs-meet-the-model-code">stocking densities of free-range hens</a> vary from 1,500 birds per hectare or less, for small production systems, to 10,000 birds or more per hectare for large systems. </p>
<p>Smaller producers, the consumer group Choice and the Australian Greens have all argued that eggs labelled free range should have a maximum stocking density of 1,500 birds per hectare. This is the outdoor stocking density recommended for free-range hens under the <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=3451">Model Code of Practice</a>, the official national animal welfare guideline for poultry. </p>
<p>The new labelling standard will set a maximum outdoor stocking density for free-range hens of 10,000 birds per hectare, which is the typical stocking density of many large producers who supply to the major supermarkets, contrary to the Model Code. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.choice.com.au/food-and-drink/meat-fish-and-eggs/eggs/articles/choice-calls-for-bad-egg-boycott-310316">Choice</a> has called the new standard “meaningless” and has called on consumers to boycott supermarket eggs with stocking densities of 10,000 hens per hectare. </p>
<h2>Consumer confusion</h2>
<p>For consumers, the confusion around free range looks set to continue. Multiple definitions of free range will still exist. The <a href="http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/rattenbury/2016/free-range-egg-definition-a-missed-opportunity">Australian Capital Territory has already introduced egg-labelling laws</a> that define free range as 1,500 birds per hectare or less, and some brands and supermarkets will seek to differentiate their free-range eggs with different stocking densities. </p>
<p>Consumer protection will also arguably be weaker under the new standard, as it will provide producers who meet the standard with a safe harbour against ACCC action for misleading consumers.</p>
<p>Consumers will need to look at egg labels carefully. A stocking density of 1,500 or less may be the only clue to indicate that eggs are likely to have been produced under a small-scale free-range system, where most hens have access to the outdoors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57060/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christine Parker receives funding from the Australian Research Council to research “Regulating Food Labels: The Case of Free Range Food Products in Australia” (with Dr Gyorgy Scrinis, University of Melbourne) (DP150102168).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gyorgy Scrinis receives funding from from the Australian Research Council to research “Regulating Food Labels: The Case of Free Range Food Products in Australia” (with Prof. Christine Parker, University of Melbourne) (DP150102168).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Carey is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne on the project 'Regulating Food Labels: The case of free range food products in Australia', which is funded by the Australian Research Council. She is also a Research Fellow on the project Foodprint Melbourne, which is funded by the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation. </span></em></p>New standards for free-range eggs will limit stocking densities and mean hens must have access to outdoors.Christine Parker, Professor of Law, The University of MelbourneGyorgy Scrinis, Lecturer in Food Politics and Policy, The University of MelbourneRachel Carey, Research Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/537572016-01-28T11:22:33Z2016-01-28T11:22:33ZWhy a new trade deal has put GM crop concerns in the spotlight<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109477/original/image-20160128-3039-11de3mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">TTIP is coming</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-273428492/stock-photo-ttip-american-and-european-flag-in-front-of-a-map-of-europe.html?src=csl_recent_image-2">John Kehly</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Civil society groups have been voicing concerns about the upcoming Euro-American trade deal the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) since it was <a href="http://www.euintheus.org/press-media/ttip-launch-with-president-obama-at-g8-a-powerful-demonstration-of-our-determination-to-shape-an-open-and-rules-based-world-says-president-barroso/">announced</a> three years ago. </p>
<p>The list of worries includes companies being able to constrain public policy; the potential for weaker consumer and health and safety standards; and the secrecy around the negotiations. Genetically modified (GM) products are one subject on the table, since they fall within TTIP’s broader remit to tackle areas where the US and EU approaches are furthest apart and have therefore been ignored by <a href="http://useu.usmission.gov/transatlantic_relations.html">previous efforts</a> to harmonise regulations. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the potential effect on how GM is regulated is of serious concern. </p>
<p>In the US <a href="http://phys.org/news/2013-06-gmo-corn-soybeans-dominate.html">the share</a> of GM crops, particularly maize and soybeans, has grown steadily over the years – even though support for the technology is not universal. The US has no specific legislation over GM crops, but approves them either through the Food and Drug Administration or via national environmental policy processes, depending on the variety and purpose. </p>
<p>Approvals use a science-based risk assessment, which focuses on whether scientists have identified sufficient risks to justify a ban. Although the federal authorities are the most important in this area, municipal authorities also have jurisdiction over GM to some extent, and some Californian municipalities <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/26/yurok-tribe-bans-gmos/">have banned</a> cultivation, for example. On the other hand, attempts at both federal and state level to force consumer products to carry GM labels have failed.</p>
<h2>The European approach</h2>
<p>In the EU, applications to approve new crops go to the relevant member state and are then passed to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA makes a recommendation to the European Commission (EC), which in turn makes a recommendation that is subject to a vote by the member states. These recommendations are based on the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al32042">precautionary principle</a> – meaning that approvals might be refused if the science is not sufficiently certain about the level of risk involved. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/seeds-of-doubt-why-consumers-weigh-up-gm-produce-and-turn-it-down-50106">As things stand</a>, only one GM crop has EU approval for cultivation. Imports of consumer products and animal feeds with GM ingredients are permitted, but they <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/traceability_labelling/index_en.htm">must be</a> labelled if the GM content is above 0.9%; and non-GM foods and feeds can display labels signalling that they are GM free. </p>
<p>The reason why so few GM products are permitted is that strong opposition in some member states, including Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Italy, led the EC to suspend its approval processes in 1998. To get around this, new regulations introduced last April include opt-out measures so that even if a product is approved at EU level, individual member states <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-europe-will-let-member-states-opt-out-of-gm-crops-50873">can still</a> decide not to allow cultivation or use the product in food or animal feeds in their national territory. This is designed to break the deadlock and allow more pro-GM areas like Spain, Portugal and the English part of the UK to take up these products.</p>
<p>These changes to the rules are linked to a World Trade Organisation (WTO) <a href="http://nwrage.org/content/factbox-key-findings-wto-ruling-gmos">2006 ruling</a> against the EU’s approach to granting GM approvals, following pressure from US farming groups and GM manufacturers. The WTO found that most EU member states were unduly slow to deal with approval applications for new GM crops and that a previous pan-EU moratorium on new applications contravened the rules of international trade. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.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">Fruit shoot.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-189324287/stock-photo-genetic-modification-of-fruit-with-a-syringe-full-of-chemicals.html?src=csl_recent_image-1">ddsign</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Other US trade agreements</h2>
<p>When it comes to predicting what TTIP could mean for the very different approaches to GM in the US and EU, people often look to the other ambitious US trade deal in the making, the <a href="https://ustr.gov/tpp/overview-of-the-TPP">Trans-Pacific Partnership</a>, which involves 11 other Pacific Rim countries. From the parts of TPP <a href="https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text">published so far</a>, environmental groups like Ecowatch <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/05/tpp-text-atttack-food-labeling-laws/">are concerned</a> that the section on sanitary and phytosanitary standards could weaken national resolve to control GM through labelling. </p>
<p>Though it doesn’t mention prevention of GM labelling as such, it includes commitments to prevent undue delays on imports of agricultural goods; to limit inspections; and accept that different systems can achieve the same outcome. Meanwhile, the sections on intellectual property include a 10-year data-exclusivity requirement for new agricultural chemical products. This appears to provide an additional economic incentive for GM producers to develop products and push for greater market share. </p>
<p>TPP also pushes for each country to recognise the other signatories’ certification systems for organic products, which raises an analogy with the US-South Korea <a href="https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta">free-trade agreement</a> of 2011. Following the agreement Korea <a href="http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/jan2006/korea.php">was forced</a> to adapt its zero tolerance against GM, which had previously meant that to be considered organic in that South Korea, products had to have a 100% guarantee that there was no GM contamination in them. Since certain non-GM organic products from the US could not give that 100% guarantee, they had not previously qualified as organic in Korea. The trade deal meant that if products were labelled organic in the US, they had to be accepted as organic in South Korea. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.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">What Korea has to swallow …</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/korea+food/search.html?page=4&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=339006191">Sarunyu L</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Because most EU members still oppose GM, it seems highly improbable that the US will be able use the TTIP negotiations to force Europe to dramatically change its position. But GM labelling, which is voluntary in the US, might be the area where the Americans try to exert the most pressure. </p>
<p>TTIP is no doubt generating heated debates behind closed doors. Because the final outcome will depend on trade-offs and linkages across the whole agreement, it is impossible to say how this will affect GM at this stage. And even once we have a published agreement, it will take years before we see how it is implemented and interpreted in practice – just like it will with TPP. All we can say is that it has the potential to have a substantial effect on current regulation. Many people are therefore watching developments closely. </p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53757/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Garcia 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 upcoming TTIP trade agreement could force EU to liberalise GM regulations such as labelling.Maria Garcia, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/110692012-12-07T00:01:30Z2012-12-07T00:01:30ZOut with traffic lights, in with stars – next steps for food labelling<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18353/original/c448qz9x-1354682968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The star scheme is yet to undergo consumer testing to see if it helps guide healthier food choices.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bruce A Stockwell</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government is likely to introduce a star system for food packages next year to help consumers make healthier food choices, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3642408.htm">ABC’s Lateline reported</a> last week. Much like the energy star rating system on white goods, the proposed star system for food labels would see healthier choices carrying more stars than less healthy choices.</p>
<p>The introduction of an easy-to-understand food labelling system was a key recommendation of the <a href="http://www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/content/labelling-logic">2011 Blewett review of food labelling</a>. Over the past year, public health experts, consumer groups, representatives from the food and retail industries, and state and territory governments (plus New Zealand) have participated in a Commonwealth-led process aimed at developing a front-of-pack food labelling system that could be applied nationwide. </p>
<p>But before the consultation started, Federal Parliamentary Secretary Catherine King <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/tr-yr11-nr-nrsp301111.htm">ruled out the possibility</a> of traffic light food labels, despite strong support from public health groups. Instead, King <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/tr-yr11-nr-nrsp301111.htm">flagged an interest</a> in a star rating scheme proposed by the <a href="http://www.iom.edu/">Institute of Medicine</a> (IOM) in the in the United States, an option that has proved much more palatable for the food industry.</p>
<p>Manufacturers have used the food industry’s own daily intake guide (DIG) since 2006 but it doesn’t meet the Blewett review’s requirement for an “interpretive” system. It only presents information about the contribution that a serve of a food or drink contributes to the supposedly “average” person’s daily dietary requirement. DIG labelling <a href="http://www.opc.org.au/paper.aspx?ID=digcritique_polbrief&Type=policydocuments#.UL7aqpNeu9g">has been criticised as being meaningless</a> for most of the population.</p>
<h2>Star labelling</h2>
<p>The IOM’s proposed star scheme would display the amount of energy (calories in the US) and award a star if a product passed nutrient criteria for saturated and <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-trans-fats-868">trans fats</a>, sodium (salt) and added sugars – one star for passing each nutrient criteria. </p>
<p>But the labelling system is not currently in the marketplace, and no government, retailer or food manufacturer has committed to adopt it.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18360/original/xvqp4v3p-1354749067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18360/original/xvqp4v3p-1354749067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18360/original/xvqp4v3p-1354749067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18360/original/xvqp4v3p-1354749067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18360/original/xvqp4v3p-1354749067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18360/original/xvqp4v3p-1354749067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18360/original/xvqp4v3p-1354749067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neither star labelling scheme has been tested with consumers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yuliana Vislova</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The star scheme proposed in Australia is very different in that it uses the stars to indicate overall healthiness: the more stars, the healthier the food. </p>
<p>The Australian star scheme is intended to be based on a nutrient profiling criteria developed by the food regulator, <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/">Food Standards Australia New Zealand</a>. This takes into account a product’s kilojoule, saturated fat, sugar and sodium content, as well as how much fibre, protein, fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes are in a product.</p>
<p>Neither star scheme has been subject to testing to see how well consumers understand the schemes and how effective they might be in guiding healthier choices.</p>
<h2>The least worst option</h2>
<p>Several new star labelling concepts will be tested with Australian consumers in early 2013. The schemes have been developed by a committee of government, industry and health stakeholders who have publicly declared polarised positions, with health groups supporting a traffic light system and industry groups standing behind the daily intake guide. </p>
<p>The concern is that the scheme being developed is likely to be the least offensive option for food industry groups and something that public health groups could potentially live with, but it won’t be the most effective in promoting healthy choices. </p>
<p>With high levels of diet-related chronic disease in the community, Australians need the right information to make healthy lifestyle changes. When it comes to packaged food and beverages, clear, easy-to-interpret food labels <a href="https://theconversation.com/seeing-red-critics-of-better-food-labels-fail-to-understand-public-health-measures-3617">assist shoppers to make healthier choices</a>. And <a href="https://theconversation.com/states-should-stand-up-to-the-food-industry-on-traffic-light-labelling-4504">evidence suggests</a> front-of-pack labelling would be a cost effective strategy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18355/original/kmg5gcd7-1354683310.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18355/original/kmg5gcd7-1354683310.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18355/original/kmg5gcd7-1354683310.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18355/original/kmg5gcd7-1354683310.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18355/original/kmg5gcd7-1354683310.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18355/original/kmg5gcd7-1354683310.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18355/original/kmg5gcd7-1354683310.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Traffic light food labels might be best for consumers, but industry opposition has pushed this option off the table.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HealthGauge</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The case for traffic light food labels has recently strengthened in the United Kingdom, where traffic light labels have been on products in various forms since 2007. In October, the UK government announced a consistent front-of-pack food labelling system would be introduced in 2013. The system is reported to be a combination of guideline daily amounts (similar to DIG), traffic light colour coding and “high, medium or low” guidance to indicate levels of fat, salt and sugar and how much energy is in each product. </p>
<p>Around the same time, several UK supermarkets that had previously been resistant, announced that they would introduce traffic light labels. This means most UK supermarkets will use traffic lights, despite food manufacturers remaining silent.</p>
<p>Ultimately, we need consumer testing to determine which front-of-pack food labelling scheme would be effective in promoting healthy choices. We know that competing schemes just fuel consumer confusion so one single consistent scheme is important.</p>
<h2>Voluntary, not mandatory</h2>
<p>Perhaps the biggest challenge to the introduction of the new food labelling scheme is that while the agreed scheme will be endorsed and promoted by government, it will not be a mandatory standard that becomes part of the Food Standards Code. Instead, it will be a voluntary scheme that will rely on the goodwill of food manufacturers and food industry organisations such as the Australian Food and Grocery Council to champion its adoption.</p>
<p>Yet in this <a href="https://theconversation.com/food-industry-digs-in-heels-over-traffic-light-labels-311">highly-politicised process</a>, the food lobby won’t give up on its DIG scheme without a fight. Gary Dawson the new CEO of the Australian Food and Grocery Council was quoted last week as <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3642408.htm">saying</a>, “having invested in DIG it doesn’t make sense to take information away”. </p>
<p>On the other side of the debate, public health groups will continue to argue that a traffic light labelling system is most effective in guiding healthier choices, but we recognise that it will not be implemented as part of this process.</p>
<p>Knowing that any scheme introduced in Australia will be voluntary, and given the food industry’s increasing reluctance to walk away from its DIG labels, it is questionable what the uptake of a new scheme will be. </p>
<p>But with so much effort put into the consultation process over the past 12 months, it’s important that we don’t lose sight of the goal of an improved labelling scheme – to empower consumers to make informed choices and facilitate better health outcomes.</p>
<p><strong><em>This article was co-authored by Wendy Watson, Nutrition Project Officer at Cancer Council NSW.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathy Chapman is a co-investigator on research studies funded by the Australian research Council. This article was co-authored by Wendy Watson, Nutrition Project Officer at Cancer Council NSW.</span></em></p>The federal government is likely to introduce a star system for food packages next year to help consumers make healthier food choices, ABC’s Lateline reported last week. Much like the energy star rating…Kathy Chapman, Director Health Strategies, Cancer Council NSW & PhD student, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/83842012-07-27T01:26:20Z2012-07-27T01:26:20ZHealth claims on food products: ministers put marketers in control<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13436/original/b566885c-1343263730.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Health claims are commonly exploited to promote the consumption of highly processed foods.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr / ajleon</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian and New Zealand ministers responsible for food regulation last week bowed to lobbying from processed food manufacturers and agreed to permit them to market products with general level health claims without requiring pre-market or independent verification. </p>
<p>General level health claims are those that relate a food or an ingredient with a health benefit, such as “product X helps promote the strength of the immune system”. </p>
<p>The ministers’ decision came just over a week after the Australia Institute for Health and Welfare released its <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422319">Australia’s food and nutrition 2012</a> report, showing approximately one in four Australian children and nearly two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese. Diet-related diseases including obesity cost the health system over A$16bn annually. </p>
<p>Public health and consumer organisations have <a href="http://www.choice.com.au/media-and-news/media-releases/2012-media-releases/food%20ministers%20serve%20up%20health%20marketing%20free%20for%20all.aspx">expressed frustration</a> with the ministers’ decision. They have been seeking leadership from government to establish policies to protect and promote public health. Instead, the ministers have effectively made it easier for food manufacturers to add to the cacophony of food marketing messages already presented to the public, contributing to dietary confusion and over-consumption. </p>
<p>Food manufacturers have welcomed the policy decision and argue it will help stimulate food product innovation and enable them to better promote the health benefits of their products to the public. </p>
<h2>Why food and health information matters</h2>
<p>Australians have poor food literacy. It is not uncommon for surveys to report that a proportion of respondents believe spaghetti grows in trees or that milk is made in a carton. </p>
<p>Against this context, the <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">National Health and Medical Research Council’s</a> (NHMRC) work in preparing and promoting the <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/n29-n30-n31-n32-n33-n34">Australian Dietary Guidelines</a> and the <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/E384CFA588B74377CA256F190004059B/$File/fd-cons.pdf">Australian Guide to Healthy Eating</a> is especially important. These policy documents provide evidence-based and user-friendly food and health information for consumers to select a variety of “foundation” foods from each of the five food groups to achieve a healthy diet. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13435/original/2j9z6n66-1343262703.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13435/original/2j9z6n66-1343262703.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13435/original/2j9z6n66-1343262703.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13435/original/2j9z6n66-1343262703.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13435/original/2j9z6n66-1343262703.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13435/original/2j9z6n66-1343262703.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13435/original/2j9z6n66-1343262703.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Processed food manufacturers are permitted to market their products with general level health claims without requiring pre-market or independent verification.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Beige Alert</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Health claims do not provide the same type of food and health information and merely focus on the benefits of individual nutrients or foods in isolation from the context of dietary balance, variety and moderation. </p>
<p>Experience shows that health claims are commonly exploited to promote the consumption of highly processed foods such as refined breakfast cereals and fruit drinks that are fortified with one or more nutrients. </p>
<p>Perversely, health claims are less accessible to foundation foods such as fruit and vegetables. As well as having fewer marketing resources available, these foods generally are not packaged and so are less able to display health claims. </p>
<h2>Food regulation priorities</h2>
<p>The self-regulation approach for general level health claims comes on the eve of the 21st anniversary of the nationally harmonised food regulatory system in Australia. Indeed, health claims was one of the first projects that the newly established food regulatory system inherited from the previous NHMRC system. </p>
<p>During its 21 years, the food regulatory system has constantly struggled with how to manage health claims and there have been many false starts in which proposals have been extended or replaced with new approaches. </p>
<p>Historically and internationally, health claims have been tightly regulated and, in many cases, prohibited. But a deregulation agenda has informed Australian and New Zealand food regulation reforms of the past decade. </p>
<p>Since 2008, food manufacturers have had access to a list of over 100 pre-approved food and health relationships that can be used as the basis of general level health claims. Now with a self-regulation approach, a number of public health challenges will arise that were able to be managed under a pre-approval approach:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The control of what, and when, general level health claims appear in the market place is largely at the discretion of food manufacturers. And they don’t have a strong track record of protecting public health with self-regulation approaches. Just think of the marketing of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods to children. </p></li>
<li><p>Greater demands will be placed on the regulatory system to assess and enforce the health claims that appear in the marketplace. </p></li>
<li><p>There is less certainty for regulators, manufacturers and the public. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Ministers suggest that public health will be protected under a self-regulation approach because foods that contain high amounts of sugar, fat or salt will be disqualified from making claims. But how this protective measure will be enforced to prevent such products from appearing in the marketplace is not clear.</p>
<p>The primary objective for the food regulatory system is to protect public health and safety. Nevertheless, there are potential risks for public health associated with the ministers’ self-regulation approach for health claims. Clearly the winners from this policy decision are food marketers. </p>
<p>Curiously, the ministers’ decision comes at time when the Council of Australian Governments’ <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/phd-prevention-np">National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health</a> is investing A$872.1 million over six years in priority public health activities, including obesity prevention. There appears to be a disconnect between the policy activities of the food regulatory system and the public health priorities of other government sectors.</p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>There are two particular public health priorities that emerge from this policy decision. First, general level health claims will need to be monitored and evaluated so that a degree of accountability can be applied to the self-regulation approach. </p>
<p>Second, public health and consumer organisations will need to be on alert to identify if this policy decision is a one-off or a portent of a sweeping deregulation agenda across other food labelling activities. </p>
<p>Can the public be confident that the disqualifying criteria proposed as a protective measure to complement self-regulation will remain in place? Or will it be the next public health domino to fall under the deregulation agenda reforming the food regulatory system?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8384/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I have no potential conflicts before publication.</span></em></p>Australian and New Zealand ministers responsible for food regulation last week bowed to lobbying from processed food manufacturers and agreed to permit them to market products with general level health…Mark Lawrence, Associate Professor in Public Health Nutrition, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/60482012-03-28T03:12:33Z2012-03-28T03:12:33ZEnvironmentally friendly pollutants - what your detergent does to waterways<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9059/original/b58n92d5-1332900129.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No matter how friendly your detergent is, it does damage.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NPS Photo/Neal Herbert</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After the big wet, spare a thought for the health of your waterways and the substances that wash into them. </p>
<p>Bacteria are important to the health of the waterways running through our backyards. As decomposers - organisms that break down substances - they are an essential part of a natural healthy ecosystem. These bacteria live on the substances that wash into the waterway.</p>
<p>While bacteria are small, what they lack in size they make up for in their numbers and how fast they growth. I often find millions in one millilitre of creek and river water, with bacterial populations doubling every 20 minutes. </p>
<p>Just like you and I, they need food and oxygen to breathe if they are to survive. The oxygen they take from the water. The natural flow of a healthy creek and river replaces the oxygen that the bacteria remove. We know that the more bacteria are fed the more oxygen they use.
During storms, the pollutants washed from houses, farms and urban allotments into our waterways are a great source of food for these bacteria. Fortunately, the fast flowing water and turbulence keep plenty of oxygen in the water. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9057/original/g48ft6dz-1332900107.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9057/original/g48ft6dz-1332900107.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9057/original/g48ft6dz-1332900107.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9057/original/g48ft6dz-1332900107.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9057/original/g48ft6dz-1332900107.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9057/original/g48ft6dz-1332900107.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9057/original/g48ft6dz-1332900107.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bacteria use up the oxygen, and fish can suffocate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">severinus/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After the storm, flood waters recede and the waterways return to their slow meandering path. Then much less oxygen is returned to the water. But the bacteria continue to use the new pollutants as food. </p>
<p>The problem is that the bacteria can take so much oxygen that little is left for bigger organisms like fish. Fish kills a few weeks after heavy rains are often because the fish suffocated, not because of poisons, as many think. This is what makes for a very unhealthy ecosystem.</p>
<p>The big question is, “What are bacteria eating and where is it coming from?”</p>
<p>“Biodegradable” soaps and detergents are designed as food for bacteria. They are often referred to as “environmentally friendly”. Yet if they end up in our waterways they are anything but friendly. These soaps and detergents are meant to feed the bacteria in sewerage treatment plants under controlled conditions. Once these bacteria remove the detergents from the waste water, the cleaned water is released back into the environment. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9060/original/8nyq64r7-1332900257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9060/original/8nyq64r7-1332900257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9060/original/8nyq64r7-1332900257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9060/original/8nyq64r7-1332900257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9060/original/8nyq64r7-1332900257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9060/original/8nyq64r7-1332900257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9060/original/8nyq64r7-1332900257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Think about where all this detergent goes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">bark/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Environmentally friendly detergents are not meant to feed the bacteria in our waterways. They are pollutants when they encourage bacterial growth and loss of oxygen in our rivers and streams. They can be the cause of a very unhealthy ecosystem. </p>
<p>Think about the substances that wash off your property and into the nearest storm water drain. Remember, when you wash your car, wash the dog, wash the house, wash the driveway, or recycle the washing machine waste water, if the detergents make it to the street they will end up in the nearest waterway. </p>
<p>Avoid using detergents. If you must use them, make sure that the waste water goes into the sewer or use it to irrigate your garden. Whatever methods you use make sure the soaps and detergents do not leave your property.</p>
<p>If everyone did their bit to reduce these sources of pollution, we could significantly improve the health of our local creeks and rivers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6048/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Pollard 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>After the big wet, spare a thought for the health of your waterways and the substances that wash into them. Bacteria are important to the health of the waterways running through our backyards. As decomposers…Peter Pollard, Principal Research Fellow, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/43292012-01-05T20:14:55Z2012-01-05T20:14:55ZExplainer: do we need to follow medication use-by dates?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6781/original/94wcc7rw-1324520992.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It depends on the drug, how it's been stored and whether the pack has been opened.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">saveas new</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s late in the night. And after a long day at work, you have a splitting headache. You rattle around in the bottom drawer of the bathroom vanity to find a packet of paracetamol tablets you know are hiding there. </p>
<p>Phew, relief is at hand! Then you turn the packet over and discover that the crumpled box of pills actually expired two years ago. </p>
<p>So are they really out-of-date, or would it be okay to take them just this once? </p>
<p>Well, the answer varies, depending on the type of medication, how it has been stored, over what period of time and whether it’s still in its original, sealed container. </p>
<p>Expiry dates were introduced for medicines around 30 years ago to signal the date beyond which the manufacturer can’t guarantee the <em>full</em> effectiveness and safety of the medication in its original <em>sealed</em> packaging. But that doesn’t mean it will suddenly become completely useless the day after it expires.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6775/original/q2j2cb4k-1324520188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6775/original/q2j2cb4k-1324520188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6775/original/q2j2cb4k-1324520188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6775/original/q2j2cb4k-1324520188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6775/original/q2j2cb4k-1324520188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6775/original/q2j2cb4k-1324520188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6775/original/q2j2cb4k-1324520188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&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"><span class="source">Mr. T in DC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Once the container or seal is opened, the expiration date on the packaging doesn’t apply any more. Just like a tin of tuna from the cupboard, you couldn’t expect it would still be okay in two years time once you opened the tin. </p>
<p>Some tablets and capsules are packaged in blister packs or foil wrappers so although the box may be opened, the tablet or capsule is still in the sealed container and the expiry still applies. But when the medication comes in an open bottle, once it’s opened and exposed to air, the expiry date on the packaging no longer applies.</p>
<p>The United States Department of Defence’s <a href="http://www.usamma.army.mil/dod_slep.cfm">Food and Drug Administration Shelf Life Extension Program</a> has investigated the extent to which products are stable after their expiration date has been reached. It found that when medications were stored in their unopened containers, most remained stable for a number of years past the labelled expiry date. </p>
<p>Over time, the potency of some of the medications declined, while others were open to microbial contamination if there product’s preservative became ineffective. Liquid medications such as solutions and suspensions were generally not as stable as tablets and capsules.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6778/original/wyd5y6tr-1324520427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6778/original/wyd5y6tr-1324520427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6778/original/wyd5y6tr-1324520427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6778/original/wyd5y6tr-1324520427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6778/original/wyd5y6tr-1324520427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6778/original/wyd5y6tr-1324520427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6778/original/wyd5y6tr-1324520427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Use-by dates aside, it’s not safe to take medicines after their discard date has expired.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kelsey Hannah</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some medications – such as glyceryl trinitrate tablets (Anginine), insulin, eye drops and antibiotics – have specified discard dates that kick in after they’re opened. The stability of these medications is significantly altered with exposure to light, heat, moisture and oxygen, causing them to lose effectiveness. These are medications which should never be used after their expiry date.</p>
<p>And finally, where you keep your medication is also very important. For most medications, storing them in a cool place away from heat and high humidity can help to improve their shelf-life. </p>
<p>So what does all this mean to our headache sufferer with his packet of expired paracetamol? </p>
<p>The medication is still in its original sealed blister pack even though it’s two years past its expiry date. But it’s been stored in a warm and humid bathroom environment, which may alter the stability of medication and could change the effectiveness of the product. If he has no other alternative than the expired paracetamol, it may be better than nothing but it probably won’t be 100% effective. </p>
<p>But, of course, the situation would be different if we were talking about insulin, antibiotics or medicines with a “discard date”. These medicines should never be used beyond this date. </p>
<p>As a rule, it’s best not to use products after their expiry date to ensure you’re getting the maximum benefit from your treatments. And if you’re in doubt about the safety or effectiveness of any medication, check with your pharmacist.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4329/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Nissen is affiliated with Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and The University of Queensland, School of Pharmacy</span></em></p>It’s late in the night. And after a long day at work, you have a splitting headache. You rattle around in the bottom drawer of the bathroom vanity to find a packet of paracetamol tablets you know are hiding…Lisa Nissen, Associate Professor of Pharmacy, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/46002011-12-06T19:37:38Z2011-12-06T19:37:38ZSteggles’ ‘free to roam’ claim could hatch a whole lot of trouble for poultry producers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6172/original/dywmkf6n-1323144968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">By claiming too much, Steggles has raised the question: how much space does a chicken need?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">aprilskiver</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For the animal industry and the animal protection movement, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) <a href="http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1006465/fromItemId/2332">pending case</a> against poultry producer Steggles is set to be their very own version of the OJ Simpson trials – absolutely gripping!</p>
<p>Under examination are claims made by Steggles, in an advertising campaign they funded and approved, that broiler chickens are “free to roam”. In response, the “ACCC alleges that the population density of meat chickens raised in barns preclude such movement”. </p>
<p>The chickens we eat are typically referred to as broiler chickens. This differentiates them from <a href="http://theconversation.com/dont-get-eggs-cited-about-free-range-the-realities-of-poultry-production-3895">egg-laying hens</a>. Broiler chickens live in large sheds and face a number of serious welfare problems. </p>
<p>Broiler chickens are typically fully grown by six weeks. The result of their accelerated growth is that many birds suffer under the weight of their large body mass. Serious skeletal problems are not uncommon. </p>
<p>But while the raising of broiler chickens is not uncontroversial from an animal welfare perspective, it is nonetheless true that they do not live in cages. That is, they do not live in <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Industrial-Chicken-Coop.JPG">battery cages</a>, which is the cage system used in the commercial egg industry. But just because they don’t live in cages, does that mean they are “free to roam”? The ACCC doesn’t think so and apparently Federal Court judge Richard Tracey also has his doubts. </p>
<p>In opening submissions Justice Tracey was <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/free-to-roam--on-a4-sheet-20111205-1ofl0.html#ixzz1fiREGb2f">quoted as saying</a>: “Five hundred square centimetres is a very small part of this world … Does it not follow mathematically that if some birds are to have a larger amount of space in which to move around, the others in the shed are going to be even closer together?”. </p>
<p>You see, while a typical broiler shed may be relatively spacious on day one, when the chicks are very small, by day 30 these are cramped environments. Moreover, the birds have to spend considerable time trying to access food and water. It’s no mean feat when you share a trough with around <a href="http://beyondchicken.com.au/nm-broiler-shed-s.jpg">30,000 others</a>. </p>
<p>As someone who has spent time inside a broiler shed as a member of the <a href="http://www.animalethics.org.au/animal-research-review-panel">NSW Animal Research Review Panel</a>, I’m not surprised by the revelations coming out of the Steggles case.</p>
<p>What has got me aghast is that this scrutiny, and the cost and stress associated with facing Federal Court, was all brought upon Steggles by themselves. If they had just kept their mouths shut and said nothing they could have continued growing chicken meat any way they liked and no one would have been any wiser. </p>
<p>Given this incredible turn of events, two questions come quickly to mind: why did they decide to invite such scrutiny? And how could they possibly have thought that anyone would equate 18 birds per square metre with a capacity to “roam”? They should have asked me. I could have told them that it simply wouldn’t wash. </p>
<p>In research I undertook for my PhD at the University of Sydney, and subsequently published in my book <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=393597">Animals, Equality and Democracy</a>, I demonstrate that the more the community is aware of animal suffering the more likely they are to insist on stronger animal protection laws. This means that high-visibility animal uses, such as animals in zoos, tend to attract stronger animal welfare laws than low-visibility animal uses, such as factory farming. </p>
<p>As Emeritus Professor of animal agriculture, <a href="http://ans.oregonstate.edu/personnel/faculty/cheeke.htm">Peter R. Cheeke</a> <a href="http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=6271052368&searchurl=isbn%3D0131125869">argues</a>, “one of the best things modern animal agriculture has going for it is that most people in the developed countries are several generations removed from the farm and haven’t a clue how animals are raised and ‘processed’”.</p>
<p>So that returns us to the puzzling matter of Steggles and why they thought they could describe broiler chickens as “free to roam”. Maybe they assumed that because most people will never see inside a broiler shed the public would not know the difference. </p>
<p>While that analysis may be partially true, it doesn’t take into account the growing influence and professionalism of animal protection organisations. For example, Sydney-based <a href="http://www.voiceless.org.au/">Voiceless</a> has its own in-house legal team and was one of a number of agencies to make a <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/animals/poultry-hormone-claims-mislead-say-consumer-groups-20111007-1ldly.html">complaint against Steggles</a> to the ACCC. Is Steggles unaware of the growing professionalism among animal advocates?</p>
<p>We will never know what discussions took place in the lead up to the ill-fated “free to roam” advertising campaign. But, I for one, will be watching carefully for media reports about the court case. I also anticipate that by its close the broader community will know a whole lot more about how chickens are raised for meat – probably more than Steggles would like you to know. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4600/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siobhan O'Sullivan is a financial member of, or has been a financial member of, a number of animal protection organisations including RSPCA NSW and Animals Australia. Siobhan recently received a small grant from Voiceless to help established an animals focused university elective.</span></em></p>For the animal industry and the animal protection movement, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) pending case against poultry producer Steggles is set to be their very own version…Siobhan O'Sullivan, Research Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/45042011-12-01T03:44:03Z2011-12-01T03:44:03ZStates should stand up to the food industry on traffic light labelling<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5984/original/ijclark-jpg-1322536290.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C4%2C640%2C401&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The food industry has won this round but the traffic light labelling fight isn't over yet.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IJClark</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Federal Government has defied expert advice and <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr254.htm">rejected</a> a traffic light food labelling system for packaged foods, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to show it would give consumers the information they needed to make informed choices. </p>
<p>Front-of-pack traffic light labelling, which uses green, amber and red to show, at a glance, the relative levels of fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium in a product, was one of the key recommendations of the independent expert <a href="http://www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/content/home">Food Labelling Review</a>, chaired by former Australian Health Minister Dr Neal Blewett. </p>
<p>Under the Blewett proposal, the standard nutrition information panel on the back of the pack would stay in place.</p>
<p>Australian public health experts and consumers overwhelmingly support traffic light food labelling. The only real opposition has come from large food manufacturers who claim such a system would over-simplify nutrition and potentially mislead consumers by making things too simple. </p>
<p>But what they are really opposed to is a system that could lead people to buy fewer of their unhealthy products. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6057/original/e7134cb65a6f20a9-1322703787.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6057/original/e7134cb65a6f20a9-1322703787.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6057/original/e7134cb65a6f20a9-1322703787.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6057/original/e7134cb65a6f20a9-1322703787.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6057/original/e7134cb65a6f20a9-1322703787.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6057/original/e7134cb65a6f20a9-1322703787.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6057/original/e7134cb65a6f20a9-1322703787.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Food high in salt, fat or sugar would carry a red label.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Digiputz</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Benefits and evidence</h2>
<p>Public health experts developed the traffic light system <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/frontofpackguidance2.pdf">in the UK</a> in 2006 in an effort to help combat rising levels of obesity and diseases such as heart disease, stroke and diabetes. The <a href="http://www.un.org/en/ga/ncdmeeting2011/">United Nations</a> recently recognised the threat of these non-communicable diseases as a global public health crisis, and called for decisive preventative action from government leaders.</p>
<p>There are three main benefits to traffic light food labels:</p>
<p>1) Only a small percentage of the population read the current back-of-pack nutrition information panels and even fewer understand it. Research in Australia shows <a href="http://www.opc.org.au/latestnews/mediareleases/pages/mr20110905.aspx">nine out of 10 people</a> prefer traffic light labels to other labelling formats and find it much easier to understand.</p>
<p>Despite the government’s claim, there is <a href="http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=2456&fromsearch=yes">clear evidence</a> to show traffic light labels would help increase consumer awareness and understanding of the nutritional content of food. This is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19087382">particularly true</a> for people from low socioeconomic groups who are most at risk of poor health.</p>
<p>2) Traffic light labels would provide an <a href="http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/7/1/65">incentive</a> for food manufacturers to reformulate their products to make them more healthy so they can display more green and amber lights, and fewer red lights.</p>
<p>Even with small reformulations – to decrease levels of salt in certain products, for instance – the impact on population health can be <a href="http://heart.bmj.com/content/96/23/1920.full.html">substantial</a>. And this can happen without consumers having to change what they buy.</p>
<p>3) Traffic light labels can lead people to choose healthier foods. </p>
<p>There is very little evidence of how traffic light labels affect what people actually buy. Our research has looked at supermarket sales in <a href="http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/4/344.abstract">the United Kingdom</a> (after traffic light labels were implemented in one of the big supermarket chains) and in Australia (where we did a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00684.x/abstract">small trial of traffic light labels in an online grocery store</a>). In those two studies, we weren’t able to detect a change in sales as a result of the new traffic light labels. But the studies were just a few weeks long, were only on a limited set of home brand products and there were no education campaigns to accompany the introduction of the new labels.</p>
<p>In follow-up studies, we did some <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21079620">modelling</a> which showed it would only take 2% of people to switch to healthier choices for traffic light labels to deliver the type of health benefits that would save the government money in the long term. If traffic light labels were displayed on all packaged foods and were accompanied by a social marketing campaign to help inform consumers, these benefits seems very achievable. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6056/original/216509376b457fa5-1322703373.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6056/original/216509376b457fa5-1322703373.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6056/original/216509376b457fa5-1322703373.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6056/original/216509376b457fa5-1322703373.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6056/original/216509376b457fa5-1322703373.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6056/original/216509376b457fa5-1322703373.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6056/original/216509376b457fa5-1322703373.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Current nutrition labels are difficult to read and understand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Randomwire</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>It’s worth the cost</h2>
<p>There would be a small cost to government to administer the scheme and monitor compliance. Since the government already monitors the current labelling system, there’s unlikely to be a significant cost increase in the long term.</p>
<p>There would also be a cost to food manufacturers to redesign their product packaging to incorporate the traffic light labels. But food manufacturers are constantly redesigning their product packages – if there was a long enough lead time before the new labels were introduced, the cost would be small. When you think about how many billions of packaged food products are sold each year, the additional cost per item would be minuscule.</p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>The Federal Government’s decision to reject traffic light labels demonstrates a lack of political will for tackling obesity and preventing non-communicable diseases. Perhaps more worryingly, it’s yet another indication of the strong influence of corporate interests on government.</p>
<p>In Europe, the food industry reportedly spent a staggering <a href="http://www.corporateeurope.org/red-light-consumer-information">€1 billion</a> successfully lobbying the European parliament to reject traffic light labels. The fact that the Australian Federal government has now also rejected traffic light labels is another big win for manufacturers of unhealthy food.</p>
<p>But the fight for traffic light food labels isn’t over. The commonwealth, state and territory health and food ministers will meet next week to discuss and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/2011-12-01/3705780">vote on which labelling recommendations</a> to propose to the Council of Australian Governments. </p>
<p>There is hope that the ministers will acknowledge the strong public health arguments and overwhelming public support in favour of traffic light labels and see this proposal for what it is: a highly cost-effective policy that is likely to reduce the health and economic burden of non-communicable diseases.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4504/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Sacks 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 Federal Government has defied expert advice and rejected a traffic light food labelling system for packaged foods, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to show it would give consumers the information…Gary Sacks, Research Fellow, Deakin Population Health, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/33182011-11-18T03:20:55Z2011-11-18T03:20:55ZConsumers need the facts about complementary medicines<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5171/original/Peter_Sunna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vitamins, minerals and herbal therapies should live up to the claims on their packaging.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Peter Sunna</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Two out of three Australians use complementary medicines to boost their nutrition, alleviate various symptoms and improve their overall health and well-being. There are around 10,000 products to choose from and they’re not cheap – the industry generates around <a href="http://www.anao.gov.au/%7E/media/Uploads/Audit%20Reports/2011%2012/201112%20Audit%20Report%20No%203.pdf">$1.2 billion in sales</a> each year. </p>
<p>Despite the availability and common use of these vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies, aromatherapy and homeopathic products, consumers can’t always be sure how effective they are.</p>
<p>While pharmaceutical companies are required to prove the quality, safety and efficacy of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines to the <a href="http://www.tga.gov.au/">Therapeutic Goods Administration</a> (TGA) before they’re “registered”, complementary medicines aren’t required to live up to the claims on their packaging. </p>
<p>Rather, complementary medicines are “listed” by the TGA after being reviewed for safety and quality only. </p>
<p>The quality requirement means the medicine is produced by a licensed manufacturer and <a href="http://www.anao.gov.au/%7E/media/Uploads/Audit%20Reports/2011%2012/201112%20Audit%20Report%20No%203.pdf">adheres to the Good Manufacturing Principles</a>. The safety requirement is important because the components and content of active ingredients can vary, particularly among herbal products.</p>
<p>The difference between registered and listed products, and whether they’ve proved their efficacy, is often not clear to the consumer.
And as we saw with Ken Harvey’s recent battle with <a href="http://theconversation.com/sensaslim-and-me-how-criticism-of-a-weight-loss-spray-landed-me-in-court-1911">Sensaslim</a> over allegations of false and misleading advertising, consumers can’t always believe the claims made by manufacturers about the efficacy of complementary medicines. </p>
<p>The public backlash after the Pharmacy Guild announced its (now defunct) plan to <a href="http://theconversation.com/one-wrong-foot-after-another-the-ethics-of-the-pharmacy-guilds-deals-3939">recommend Blackmores products</a> to patients filling a prescription for four common ailments also shows consumers feel confused and misled about the efficacy of complementary products.</p>
<p>The TGA is expected to address this problem in the coming weeks
by announcing that <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/unprescribed-remedies-to-go-under-the-microscope-amid-efficacy-concerns-20111117-1nl2f.html">complementary medicines will soon have to carry a “not tested” label</a>. </p>
<p>But labels alone wouldn’t provide enough information to consumers, who want to know whether the medicine works. For that, testing is required. </p>
<p>So how should these therapies be tested? And should the same rules that are applied to prescription and over-the-counter medicines be applied to complementary medicines? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5629/original/mywellnesscentre.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5629/original/mywellnesscentre.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5629/original/mywellnesscentre.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5629/original/mywellnesscentre.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5629/original/mywellnesscentre.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5629/original/mywellnesscentre.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5629/original/mywellnesscentre.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How can you measure therapies that harness human energy?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">mywellnesscentre</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Evidence-based testing</h2>
<p>Pharmaceuticals are subjected to a series of <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/evidence_statement_form.pdf">randomised controlled studies</a> to demonstrate their effectiveness. And while <a href="http://summaries.cochrane.org/search/site/complementary">some complementary medicines have undergone similar rigorous reviews</a> to demonstrate their efficacy, the idea of such evidence-based testing is problematic for many complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. </p>
<p>Practitioners of complementary medicines work in many different ways and their patients have varied goals. </p>
<p>Some complementary therapies, such as homeopathy and acupuncture, are based on the assumption that the human body has an energy level, with therapies having a physiological impact via the energy level. How could this be tested?</p>
<p>As Wainwright Churchill noted in an article in the <a href="http://www.jcm.co.uk/product/catalog/product/view/7610/implications-of-evidence-based-medicine-for-complementary-alternative-medicine/">Journal of Chinese Medicine</a>, in order to test the efficacy of complementary medicines, you would first need to address some difficult questions:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Should the treatment that is researched be individualised for each patient? </p></li>
<li><p>Does it involve the personal relationship between the treating health professional and patient? </p></li>
<li><p>Does it involve the patient’s expectations, conscious or unconscious, of the treatment? </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This leads us to the role of the placebo: Is the placebo effect a valid healing modality?</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5631/original/rutty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5631/original/rutty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5631/original/rutty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5631/original/rutty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5631/original/rutty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5631/original/rutty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5631/original/rutty.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"><span class="source">Flickr/rutty</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sceptics deride the placebo. And yet, the placebo effect is powerful in all therapeutic relationships, in allopathic and complementary medicine. To be effective, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind">placebos don’t even require conscious belief</a> in a particular treatment.</p>
<h2>Lesson learned</h2>
<p>In determining a process by which complementary medicines should be evaluated, regulators should look to Switzerland for some lessons on what to avoid. </p>
<p>In the late 1990s, the Swiss government began a Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine (PEK – <a href="http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/krankenversicherung/00263/00264/04102/index.html">Programm Evaluation Komplementärmedizin</a>). </p>
<p>The findings of the evaluation were inconclusive but six years later, five complementary therapies were removed from the list of services covered by the national health insurance scheme. This occurred <a href="http://panmedion.org/files/PEK-Einleitung.pdf">before all parts of the review had been completed</a> and the process was far from transparent. </p>
<p>Recently, the Swiss government decided that from 2012 the five complementary therapies that had been removed from the health insurance scheme <a href="http://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/politik_schweiz/Komplementaermedizin_bleibt_auf_dem_Pruefstand.html?cid=29234668">will be included again</a>, at least for another six years. During that time, the organisations representing the five therapies will have to prove their effectiveness.</p>
<p>In Australia, consumers need reliable information about the effectiveness of all medicines, complementary or otherwise. The TGA’s plans to slap an “untested” label on complementary medicines simply isn’t enough. </p>
<p>It’s clear, however, that this world-first style of regulation won’t be easy. Regulators need to find testing methods that are acceptable to the majority of stakeholders – I’m not going to hold my breath but I hope we can one day achieve this goal.</p>
<p><em><strong>Should complementary medicines be tested for efficacy? Share your comments below.</strong></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monika Merkes' self-managed superannuation fund owns shares in Blackmores.</span></em></p>Two out of three Australians use complementary medicines to boost their nutrition, alleviate various symptoms and improve their overall health and well-being. There are around 10,000 products to choose…Monika Merkes, Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42802011-11-14T19:38:58Z2011-11-14T19:38:58ZHas the use-by date gone past its prime?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5505/original/brixton.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Consumers need more useful information about assessing the freshness and safety of food products.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Picture this: you arrive home from work feeling a bit peckish. Sliced mango and a dollop of yoghurt should ease the cravings until dinner, you think. You open the fridge door and, horror, no yoghurt. Not the yoghurt you bought four weeks ago, nor the yoghurt you bought three weeks ago, nor the yoghurt on sale that you bought last week. </p>
<p>“Darling, where’s the yoghurt?” you ask. </p>
<p>“Past its expiry date. I threw it out to keep us safe.”</p>
<p>Was the yoghurt off? </p>
<p>Did it have mould? Nope. Furry bits round the edges? Not a bit. Did it smell off? Certainly not. Did it taste off? Absolutely not.
Was it actually off?</p>
<p>All available evidence indicated a product that was perfectly safe to eat. Yet the “use-by” date stated that this product was past its prime, bad, unsafe; dangerous to eat. Somehow the product, natural yoghurt, had magically transformed from safe yesterday to off today in response to the warning date stamped on the side of the pack. </p>
<p>But was it, actually, off? Would a close look, a cautious sniff and a careful taste have proven that it was safe to eat? </p>
<p>You might assume that use-by dates have played an important role in protecting the community from food borne pathogens. After all, this simple date stamped on the packaging provides consumers with a clear directive to devour or discard the item. Just in case you were in doubt, the messages from government or quasi-government authorities is loud and clear; beyond the use-by, don’t chance it. </p>
<p>In fact, the <a href="http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.Nsf/pages/Food_labels_explained?open">Victorian Government</a> urges you not to eat anything past its use-by, “even if it looks and smells okay”. The <a href="http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/consumers/food-labels/label-facts/best-before-and-use-by-dates/">New South Wales Government</a> uses the fear factor to put you off by explaining that bacteria have been multiplying to such an extent that overnight the food has become unsafe to eat. </p>
<p>In a poetic turn, <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/learningcentre/howtoreadfoodlabels/usebyandbestbeforeda4715.cfm">Food Standards Australia and New Zealand</a> provide a natty video and the catchy phrase, “if in doubt, throw it out”. It’s a handy chant to dull the thud as the food is lobbed into the kitchen bin.</p>
<p>Indeed, according to the recent <a href="http://www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/Content/48C0548D80E715BCCA257825001E5DC0/$File/Labelling%20Logic_2011.pdf">Labelling Logic report</a>, Australia sees 5.4 million cases of food-borne illnesses each year, costing us annually around $1.2 billion. Yet importantly, the report also suggests that “use-by” and “best-before” information is not well understood by the public despite initiatives to educate and inform.</p>
<p>Though use-by dates have played a role in protecting us from food-borne pathogens, it is crucial to recognise that they also contribute to a range of problems. Use-by dates are: </p>
<ul>
<li>economically wasteful – costing the community billions of dollars in food waste</li>
<li>environmentally unsound – increasing the ecological footprint of our food</li>
<li>dangerous – taking away our need or desire to understand food spoilage and storage.</li>
</ul>
<p>In the UK, the concern over the estimated £12 billion worth of food discarded every year – much of it edible – prompted the former Environment Minister, Mr Hilary Benn, to make the claim that the use-by date was nothing more than a stock control measure for the retailer. Indeed, earlier this year, the UK Government scrapped the “sell-by” date. </p>
<p>In the US, questions about the authority of the use-by date and the growing need to reduce waste have prompted the start of a most useful website, <a href="http://shelflifeadvice.com/">Shelf Life Advice</a>. Ethel, the Shelf Life Guru, provides advice to “help you keep the food in your kitchen safe … and to help you cut food bills by avoiding waste …”. </p>
<p>The website also provides a link to a USDA fact sheet on <a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Food_Product_Dating/index.asp">Food Labelling</a>, which says that the use-by date merely indicates when a food is at its “peak quality” and that it is not a safety date at all. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5510/original/Esther17.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5510/original/Esther17.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5510/original/Esther17.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5510/original/Esther17.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5510/original/Esther17.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5510/original/Esther17.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5510/original/Esther17.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The UK Government has abandoned sell-by dates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Esther17</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But back in Australia; let’s look at the dangers of date stamping with a familiar story. </p>
<p>One warm day in summer, Patrick heads off to do the shopping. Patrick and Jo are hosting an afternoon party for a few friends the next day, so supplies are needed. </p>
<p>Supermarket first – that gets the tedious shopping out of the way. A gallop up and down the aisles takes 20 minutes plus a further five minutes at the checkout. During that time, Patrick’s trolley’s been host to four pre-packaged trays of chicken thighs and chicken breasts. </p>
<p>Offloading the groceries into the boot of the car, cool in the undercover car park, Patrick heads to the bottle shop (15 minutes), the newsagent (five minutes), the fruit and veggie shop (15 minutes) then grabs a quick cappuccino at the deli (15 minutes), where he also picks up cold meats and cheeses for the party. </p>
<p>By the time Patrick gets home (30 minutes – bad traffic) the chicken pieces have been out of the fridge for nearly two hours, the cold meat and cheese considerably less. He dumps the groceries on the kitchen counter and asks his son to pack away the food. Forty-five minutes later, Jason (age 16) emerges from his room and reluctantly packs the food in the fridge. </p>
<p>The next day, Jo rushes to the fish markets for prawns – best buy fresh – while Patrick prepares the marinated chicken. One tray of thighs is a bit whiffy, he thinks. The use-by is late next week so they must be okay. He washes them thoroughly and steeps the chicken strips in garlic, ginger, chilli, soy and mirin. That afternoon, Patrick puts the covered bowl of marinated chicken beside the barbecue while he gets the grill hot, about an hour.</p>
<p>The party was fun, the company good but that night, most of the guests are horribly ill. </p>
<p>So what’s happened? The problem here is the reliance we all place on the authority of the use-by date, a growing lack of understanding about food spoilage, and a dwindling belief in our own commonsense. Ethel of Shelf Life Advice could provide some good advice, as could <a href="http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/safetysanitation/a/bacteria.htm">When Food Goes Bad</a>, which does a great job explaining how temperature and time work together in a dastardly conspiracy to turn food off. </p>
<p>But the underlying message is this – the use-by date has passed its prime. </p>
<p>So what is the solution? Do we return to the days when we as consumers must make all the decisions about whether or not something should be eaten? Do we scrap the use-by date and allow retailers to dupe us with pre-packaged foods that are just a bit older than they should be? Or do we modify the use-by date system in a way that can help us assess the freshness and eatability of our food? </p>
<p>Our suggestion? We need to provide a more informative label alongside the use-by date that can reinstate our own wisdom for assessing freshness. Instead of a simple magical date, we need to let consumers know when a product is at its peak, for how long it may be safe to eat, and, crucially, how to assess when it’s gone bad. </p>
<p>Take eggs, for example, a beautifully packaged product that can last weeks beyond stated use-by dates. Alongside a “peak-quality” date, a colour-coded “use your judgement” bar could indicate some simple tests to gauge freshness. </p>
<p>Were the eggs kept in the fridge? (Good.) Do the eggs bob around on the surface of a bowl of water (bad) or sink to the bottom (good)? Or do the eggs pong like, well, like rotten eggs when cracked into a bowl? (Really bad.)</p>
<p>If the product is cheese or hard fruits and veggies, <a href="http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/food-and-health/food-and-drink/safety/food-poisoning.aspx">Choice</a> provides a 1cm rule. This wonderful rule reduces waste by advising consumers to cut visible mould off a wedge of cheese or slightly old rockmelon. Then, for safety, cut a further 1cm off to protect you from the growing things that you can’t see. Of course you should do a taste test, too. </p>
<p>We need to learn again the signs that demonstrate food health and to understand safe handling and transport rules to minimise waste. We need to trust our own judgement in assessing food, and we need to be supported in this via more informative food quality labels.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4280/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grant is a shareholder in a science facilitation startup. He has received funding from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Penny Wilson 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>Picture this: you arrive home from work feeling a bit peckish. Sliced mango and a dollop of yoghurt should ease the cravings until dinner, you think. You open the fridge door and, horror, no yoghurt. Not…Penny Wilson, PhD Researcher, Australian National UniversityWill J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/39492011-10-24T03:27:53Z2011-10-24T03:27:53ZMonday’s medical myth: SPF50+ sunscreen almost doubles the protection of SPF30+<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4701/original/the_half-blood_prince.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">SPF50+ only increases protection by 1.3%.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/the half blood prince</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s likely Australia’s sunscreen regulations will change this summer, enabling manufacturers to label their products as SPF50+. </p>
<p>The sunscreen industry has championed the proposed change, <a href="http://www.standards.org.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=PV5baQdzUSo%3d&tabid=94&mid=423">led by Standards Australia</a>, because the SPF50+ label will prompt many Australians to buy new product, thinking they’re getting significantly higher protection from the sun. </p>
<p>But what does SPF50+ actually mean? And will it provide better protection? </p>
<p>The Sun Protection Factor (SPF) indicates the amount of <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/dictionary?cdrid=269473">UVB</a> radiation that can reach the skin (and cause sunburn) with sunscreen, compared with no sunscreen. </p>
<p>In other words, SPF ratings indicate the multiples of time you could spend unprotected in the sun without burning, assuming the UV rating was constant. </p>
<p>But no sunscreen offers full protection from the sun. And the increment in UVB filtering between SPF30+ and SPF50+ is small, increasing protection from 96.7% to 98%. That’s a 1.3% increase, not almost double, as many people may think when making a purchasing decision.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4732/original/LiberalThug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4732/original/LiberalThug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=897&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4732/original/LiberalThug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=897&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4732/original/LiberalThug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=897&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4732/original/LiberalThug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1127&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4732/original/LiberalThug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1127&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4732/original/LiberalThug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1127&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Whether it’s SPF30+ or 50+, sunscreen alone isn’t enough to protect you against skin cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Liberalthug</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many sunscreens contain a combination “inorganic” (minerals, produced using chemical processes) and “organic” (chemical) ingredients. </p>
<p>Inorganic ingredients both absorb and reflect UV radiation, whereas organic ingredients only absorb. This means the energy from the UV radiation is used to convert the organic chemical into another form. But you wouldn’t feel any heat produced from such a change.</p>
<p>As our understanding of sunscreen’s role in protecting consumers from skin cancer evolves, sunscreen manufacturers are offering other protections. “Broad spectrum” sunscreens now protect against UVB <em>and</em> UVA radiation, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100701103415.htm">which we now know contributes to the development of skin cancer</a>.</p>
<p>Inorganic ingredients, such as titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, may offer a broad spectrum protection but they simply reflect the UV. They also tend to be gentler on the skin.</p>
<p>So what’s likely to happen if and when SPF50+ comes on to the market?</p>
<p>My concern is that consumers will think the increased SPF factor offers significantly better protection than the products they’re accustomed to. And if this leaves Australians using less sunscreen and neglecting other protection behaviours, we’re likely to see a future spike in skin cancers. </p>
<p>Australia has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world due to our climate and large fair-skinned population. More than 10,300 Australians are <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books/,%20www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=644245459">diagnosed with a melanoma each year</a> and an estimated 434,000 people are treated for one or more non-melanoma skin cancers. </p>
<p>Despite the popular slip, slop, slap campaign from the 1980s, more than 1,830 Australians die from a skin cancer each year. Even though it’s largely preventable. </p>
<p></p><figcaption><p></p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b7nocIenCYg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p></p><figcaption><p></p>
<p>Skin cancers form when skin cells are damaged by UV radiation penetrating the skin. Tanning without burning can still cause damage – if you’ve been exposed to enough UV to cause tanning, sufficient damage has been done to cause cancer.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter whether you use SPF30+ or SPF50+ sunscreen, the best way to protect yourself from skin cancer is with a combination of clothing (slip), sunscreen (slop), hat (slap), sunglasses (slide) and shade (seek), whenever the UV index reaches three or above.</p>
<h2>Tips for applying sunscreen:</h2>
<ul>
<li><p>Make sure your sunscreen is at least SPF30+, water resistant and broad spectrum, which protects you from UVB and UVA;</p></li>
<li><p>Apply 20 minutes before you go outdoors and reapply every two hours;</p></li>
<li><p>Use at least one teaspoon of sunscreen for each limb, your face and the front and back of your body;</p></li>
<li><p>Check the use-by date;</p></li>
<li><p>Never rely on sunscreen – whether it’s SPF30+ or SPF50+ – as your only defence against the sun.</p></li>
</ul></figcaption></figcaption><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3949/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Cancer Council sells a range of sunscreens, the royalties of which fund cancer research, prevention and support programs. </span></em></p>It’s likely Australia’s sunscreen regulations will change this summer, enabling manufacturers to label their products as SPF50+. The sunscreen industry has championed the proposed change, led by Standards…Ian Olver, Clinical Professor of Oncology, Cancer Council AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/36172011-10-07T03:31:12Z2011-10-07T03:31:12ZSeeing red: critics of better food labels fail to understand public health measures<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4212/original/2123097974_1c2dbdaf19_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Food labels may help curb the obesity epidemic but opponents willfully misrepresent what we know about them.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marshall Astor</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nutritional labels on food packaging empower consumers to make healthier and more informed food choices. But like other measures taken for public health, food labelling also has its critics.</p>
<p>There’s clear evidence that we have a major problem with obesity in Australia, with two in three adults and one in four children now overweight or obese. </p>
<p>So giving people the chance to make healthy food choices – with clear labelling of menus and food packaging – is more important than ever. </p>
<h2>Simplifying the landscape</h2>
<p>But Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2956454.html">recently argued on ABC’s The Drum website</a> that menu labelling doesn’t work. </p>
<p>Berg cites a study of menu labels in New York fast food chains that showed only a minority of customers changed their purchasing to items with fewer calories. Success was restricted to Subway, which already promoted itself as a healthier fast food choice. </p>
<p>He concludes that overall there was no decline in calories purchased. What he fails to mention is that menu labelling was in fact effective for several New York fast food chains, <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4464">which recorded a significant reduction in calorie intake</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4227/original/Kevin_Krejci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4227/original/Kevin_Krejci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4227/original/Kevin_Krejci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4227/original/Kevin_Krejci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4227/original/Kevin_Krejci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4227/original/Kevin_Krejci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4227/original/Kevin_Krejci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Menu labelling in New York changes the food choices of some consumers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kevin Krejci</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Berg cites other examples where changes in behaviour have been minimal. But the issue is not black and white as he makes out. </p>
<p>Consumption patterns and responses to initiatives such as menu labelling vary according to a range of factors.</p>
<h2>Importance of comprehensibility</h2>
<p>The success of menu labelling in isolation will be limited particularly if consumers’ understanding of calorie or energy intake is poor. </p>
<p>The current nutrition information panels on the back or side of packaged foods, for instance, are difficult to read and require an understanding of what kilojoule (kJ) per 100 grams means or worse, what kJ per “serve” means when serve is an uncertain quantity. </p>
<p>Consumers may also be fooled by marketing of products highlighted as “low fat”, which are nonetheless high in sugar, or vice versa. </p>
<p>Comprehensible labels are clearly required on the front of food packaging or on menus so consumers can know the total fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium content of the food. </p>
<p>Obesity is a recent public health problem so the evidence on reversing it is still evolving. The only way to build that evidence base is to continue trialling and evaluating public health measures that show potential for success.</p>
<p>And it is clearly erroneous to argue that just because one type of label may have not had a massive impact in one instance, all labels are bound to fail.</p>
<h2>All shapes and sizes</h2>
<p>There are many suggestions for types of labels that should be tried. Cancer Council Australia favours a “traffic-light” system where red would signal high, amber moderate, and green low for fat, salt and sugar. </p>
<p>In collaboration with other public health and consumer organisations, the Cancer Council conducted 790 <a href="http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/120.abstract">intercept surveys at shopping centres</a> using mock food packages. </p>
<p>Consumers were five times more likely to identify healthier products using the front-of-pack traffic-light system compared with the standard single colour system displaying ingredients as a percentage of daily intake. </p>
<p>This result is supported by research from <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19087382">New Zealand</a> and the <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/pmpreport.pdf">United Kingdom</a>.</p>
<p>What’s more, <a href="http://www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/Content/48C0548D80E715BCCA257825001E5DC0/$File/Labelling%20Logic_2011.pdf">Labelling Logic</a>, the report from the independent Blewett review of food labelling, recommends a traffic-light system. </p>
<p>But the food industry in Australia has instituted front-of-packets labels with single colour boxes showing fat, sugar and sodium as percentage of daily intake. These numbers are difficult to interpret and relate to an “average” adult. </p>
<p>It’s also a system that encompasses a different philosophy to the traffic-light system because it encourages intake – even if limited – while red traffic lights discourage intake of unhealthy foods. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4226/original/digiputz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4226/original/digiputz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4226/original/digiputz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4226/original/digiputz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4226/original/digiputz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4226/original/digiputz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4226/original/digiputz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Consumers need an overall assessment of the product’s salt, fat and sugar content.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/digiputz</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Percentage of daily intake suggests that any food item with less than the recommended daily intake can still be consumed despite the fact it may have very high levels of fat, sugar, salt or calories and should be avoided. </p>
<p>The food industry is releasing data on the percentage of labelled products but there’s little point in statistics if the labels are not understood by consumers.</p>
<h2>Beginnings and endings</h2>
<p>We also need to be careful about how we measure success of any food labelling system.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/4/344.abstract">study from the United Kingdom</a>, for instance, showed traffic-light labelling on ready meals and sandwiches had no impact of the healthiness of products purchased. </p>
<p>But only 4% of the total range of products had been labelled and the assessment was done just four weeks after labelling. </p>
<p>An indication of a true measure of success would require the labels being around for months or years, even in conjunction with an education campaign because changing established behaviours takes a long time. </p>
<p>The first thing to be measured should be whether consumers can understand the labelling system and distinguish healthy and unhealthy foods. Over time, we could measure purchasing patterns to see if there was a move towards healthier foods. </p>
<p>Another powerful measure of success would be to see how many products with red traffic lights are reformulated. </p>
<p>It can be safely assumed that food manufacturers would try to avoid red traffic light labels on their products because they may decrease sales. Any such changes to unhealthy products would bring an additional benefit. </p>
<p>The endgame of food labelling is to curb the rates of obesity and obesity-related chronic diseases in the population. </p>
<p>Surely its a goal worthy enough to accurately test the efficacy of food labels before deciding that labels don’t work based on the misinterpretation of one study.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3617/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Olver 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>Nutritional labels on food packaging empower consumers to make healthier and more informed food choices. But like other measures taken for public health, food labelling also has its critics. There’s clear…Ian Olver, Clinical Professor of Oncology, Cancer Council AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/37122011-10-05T03:26:26Z2011-10-05T03:26:26ZIs a ‘fat tax’ the answer to Australia’s obesity crisis?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4117/original/ms.Tea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia needs a tax on unhealthy foods that covers more than just fat content.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/ms Tea</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Australia should follow the lead of Denmark and consider <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-a-fat-tax-make-denmark-healthier/2011/10/04/gIQA3D5nKL_blog.html">taxing foods</a> high in saturated fats to curb the nation’s growing obesity problem, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/brown-seeks-levy-on-fattening-food-health/story-e6frg8y6-1226158481467">Greens leader Bob Brown said at yesterday’s tax forum</a>.</em> </p>
<p><em>This week Denmark added an additional tax on foods containing more than 2.3% saturated fats, which includes butter, meat, milk, cheese, oil and processed foods.</em> </p>
<p><em>So does Australia need a tax on fat? And how would it work? Dr Gary Sacks, Research Fellow at Deakin University’s Faculty of Health, has modelled options for taxes on unhealthy foods and shares his thoughts:</em></p>
<p>Obesity is a growing problem in Australia, with two out of three adults classified as overweight or obese. This increases their risk of developing chronic health conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/can-the-obesity-epidemic-be-reversed-20110919-1khp1.html#ixzz1Zrw0Msmo">key drivers of obesity</a> are around the food supply, particularly the increasing supply of cheap, tasty, high-calorie foods. </p>
<p>It’s clear that the obesity crisis needs to be urgently addressed – and increasing the price of unhealthy foods is one way to discourage consumers from favouring poor nutritional choices. </p>
<p><strong>Denmark is taxing foods such as butter, cheese, milk, meat and oil – should Australia take a similar approach?</strong></p>
<p>If we want a tax that’s going to be effective in reducing obesity in the longer term, we need a broader approach to taxing unhealthy foods rather than just measuring the fat content. </p>
<p>We need to consider the salt, sugar and fat content, along with an assessment of the benefits of nutrients such as fibre, and fruit and vegetable content. </p>
<p>Put all of this information together and you’ll get an assessment of the overall healthiness of the food. A tax should be applied on this basis, not just the saturated fat content. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4109/original/Mailloux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4109/original/Mailloux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4109/original/Mailloux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4109/original/Mailloux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4109/original/Mailloux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4109/original/Mailloux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4109/original/Mailloux.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A tax on unhealthy foods needs to go beyond just saturated fats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Mailloux </span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Based on this assessment, what type of products would be subject to a junk food tax?</strong> </p>
<p>This would include some high-sugar breakfast cereals, as well as fatty meats, some biscuits and sauces, confectionery and, of course, soft drinks.</p>
<p><strong>Where would the revenue from such a tax go?</strong></p>
<p>Our modelling work shows a two-pronged approach would be most effective in changing consumers’ food choices. </p>
<p>So you tax the foods that are high in sugar, fat and salt, and you use the revenue that’s generated to subsidise fruit and vegetables and some other healthy foods. </p>
<p>This would create more of an incentive for people to not only stop eating the unhealthy food but also choose the healthier foods. </p>
<p>We’d prefer the revenue generated from a tax on unhealthy foods to be used to subsidise fruit and vegetables but at the very least, it should be used for other public health measures. </p>
<p><strong>Aside from Denmark, has a fat tax been imposed anywhere else in the world?</strong> </p>
<p>Hungary has very recently <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,783862,00.html">introduced a tax on unhealthy foods</a> and in the United States some states have extra sales taxes on soft drinks. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4115/original/David_Berkowitz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4115/original/David_Berkowitz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4115/original/David_Berkowitz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4115/original/David_Berkowitz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4115/original/David_Berkowitz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4115/original/David_Berkowitz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4115/original/David_Berkowitz.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some US states already have a small tax on soft drinks .</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Berkowitz</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But these US soft drinks taxes are more a revenue-raising exercise than a health initiative. I haven’t seen any data on health outcomes from these taxes. </p>
<p><strong>What evidence is there to suggest a tax on junk food will work?</strong> </p>
<p>Research shows price is one of the most important factors that consumers take into account when deciding what to buy – taste is the other main consideration. So increasing the price would discourage consumption.</p>
<p>We also know that when the price of foods change, people respond – a clear example is when the price of bananas goes up, consumption of bananas goes down. </p>
<p>There is also a lot of evidence from other public health measures, such as tobacco and alcohol, which shows when you increase the price of goods through a tax, consumption clearly decreases. </p>
<p><strong>What impact will a junk food tax have on rates of obesity?</strong> </p>
<p>One single measure alone is unlikely to solve the problem. To make a difference to obesity levels, you need a whole suite of interventions – changing the price of unhealthy foods through a tax is just one measure. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4112/original/Ed_Yourdon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4112/original/Ed_Yourdon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4112/original/Ed_Yourdon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4112/original/Ed_Yourdon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4112/original/Ed_Yourdon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4112/original/Ed_Yourdon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4112/original/Ed_Yourdon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Junk food taxes are just one of many measures needed to halt rising levels of obesity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ed Yourdon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We also need to consider other interventions such as restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods, improving food labelling (with a simple traffic light labelling system), and implementing public education campaigns, among other things. </p>
<p><strong>Won’t consumers always buy junk food, even if it’s more costly and clearly unhealthy?</strong></p>
<p>The focus of all of these measures is to make it easier for people to make healthy choices. </p>
<p>These interventions aren’t about saying to people, “you can’t eat this and you have to eat that”. They’re about creating incentives and making the environment just that little bit easier for people to make the healthier choices. </p>
<p>Our modelling clearly shows that putting a tax on unhealthy foods and subsidising fruit and vegetables would end up making the population a lot healthier in the long term. </p>
<p>Importantly, it would have higher benefits for people in lower socioeconomic groups who are disproportionately affected by obesity and many other health issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3712/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Sacks 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 should follow the lead of Denmark and consider taxing foods high in saturated fats to curb the nation’s growing obesity problem, Greens leader Bob Brown said at yesterday’s tax forum. This week…Gary Sacks, Research Fellow, Deakin Population Health, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/30112011-09-11T20:09:15Z2011-09-11T20:09:15ZCocktail of chemicals: the health impact of additives in processed foods<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3185/original/5027161428_f762af4ce5_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Colouring makes food eye-catching but such chemicals could be affecting attention and activity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">wwarby/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A growing body of evidence is focusing attention on the dangers posed by the myriad chemicals in our food. Although certainty around the precise impact of these chemicals is some way off, what we do know indicates a chemical cocktail of colourings, preservatives, and flavour enhancers, among other things, may be having a negative impact on our minds and bodies.</p>
<p>When we bite into a luscious piece of chocolate cake, sip on a vanilla latte or send the kids off to school with a salami sandwich, we don’t tend to look too far past the taste of the food we’re consuming. </p>
<p>Sure the cake has heaps of sugar – but it wouldn’t taste good otherwise; the latte always tastes better with full-cream milk; and well, the kids just love salami. </p>
<p>But when we eat these foods, or provide them to children, we’re also exposing ourselves to a range of chemicals that have come to pervade our food supply. </p>
<p>The chocolate cake may well contain artificial colourings, along with the cocoa to give it that beautiful brown colour, and perhaps a preservative in the icing or cream, or even the cake itself. </p>
<p>The vanilla latte will more than likely have a benzoate preservative in the syrup, as well as colourings, not to mention artificial flavourings. </p>
<p>Salami generally won’t have colourings, but the kids will be tucking into nitrate and nitrite preservatives (not to mention the high percentage of fat). </p>
<p>Now these chemicals do serve a purpose of sorts – they’re there to make the food more attractive to us (and to our kids). They’re designed to be eye-catching (colours), long-lasting (preservatives), taste great (flavours and flavour enhancers), or have few to no calories (artificial sweeteners). </p>
<p>But research is beginning to raise questions about the long-term effects of these chemicals, particularly on children.</p>
<h2>The Southampton study</h2>
<p>Public interest in artificial food additives was brought to the forefront in 2007 with the release of the so-called <a href="http://www.purefun.ca/content/Stevenson2007-ReportedInLancetJournal.pdf">Southampton study</a>. </p>
<p>The results of this study showed the adverse effects of a mix of artificial colours and one preservative (all of which are permitted in Australia) for a group of children aged three to four and eight to nine years. </p>
<p>These children were specifically selected because they represented the “normal” population. They were not children who had an ADHD diagnosis – they were simply kids you’d find in an everyday classroom. </p>
<p>The results of the Southampton study indicated effects on attention and activity in these children after the consumption of the additive mixes. </p>
<p>While there’s <a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/ans080314.htm">criticism levelled at the Southampton study on a number of grounds</a>, it remains one of very few studies to have examined the effects of mixtures of additives on attention and behaviour in children without a psychological diagnosis. </p>
<p>While cited as a flaw, the lead author of the study, Professor Jim Stevenson noted that looking at the mixture of additives was important as it <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa080404a.pdf">mimicked the consumption of these chemicals by children in real life</a>.</p>
<p>Few children would consume only one colouring, or only a preservative. Rather, because of the prevalence of these chemicals within our food supply, and particularly within foods aimed at children, consumption of a “cocktail of chemicals” is actually the norm. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf">review of permitted artificial colourings in the United States</a> recently concluded that because of toxicological considerations food dyes should not be considered safe.</p>
<p>These considerations included the carcinogenity of the dyes, hypersensitive reactions and behavioural effects. The review concluded by recommending that manufacturers should voluntarily replace the artificial dyes with natural alternatives. </p>
<h2>The aftermath</h2>
<p>On the back of the Southampton study, the <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/agencyandeurope/">European Food Standards Agency (EFSA)</a> instituted a new labelling law, with a phase-in period of two years. </p>
<p>From July 2010, any food containing any one of the food colourings examined in the Southampton study sold within the European Union must contain a label stating “may have an adverse effect on attention and activity in children”.</p>
<p>This includes goods imported from other countries.</p>
<p>While much of the public’s attention has been focussed on artificial colourings, other studies are beginning to look at other chemicals that we add to our food. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800048m">2009 study by Italian researchers</a>, for instance, concluded that two food chemicals – the widely used preservative propyl gallate and an additive used to prevent shellfish from discolouring - both had estrogren-mimicking properties. </p>
<p>Their conclusion was these chemicals could in fact interact with, and alter, human hormones. </p>
<p>While further research is yet to be conducted within an animal model, the compositions of these chemicals suggests the potential to cause reproductive problems in animals, and potentially, in humans.</p>
<p>To be fair to the food industry, and indeed to the modern consumer, the jury is still out on the effects these chemicals are having on our biological make-up.</p>
<p>There’s much research that still needs to completed about the effects of additives in terms of their carcinogenity, hypersensitivity and behavioural effects, especially with respect to their long-term consumption. </p>
<p>But there’s a growing body of research that suggests these chemicals can be detrimental to our health and well-being.</p>
<p>While widely approved for use in our food supply, little current research exists to support the safety of their long-term use on “human indicators” such as attention, mood or behaviour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3011/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karena Burke 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>A growing body of evidence is focusing attention on the dangers posed by the myriad chemicals in our food. Although certainty around the precise impact of these chemicals is some way off, what we do know…Karena Burke, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/30532011-08-25T04:55:28Z2011-08-25T04:55:28ZWorld-first plain packaging for tobacco products a step closer to becoming law<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3160/original/roxon_plain_pack.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">roxon plain pack</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2011-12/12bd035.pdf">Legislation</a> requiring tobacco products to be in plain packaging was passed by the House of Representatives last night. This is the first such measure in the world to come so close to becoming law.</p>
<p>We asked a roundtable of experts to respond to the news.</p>
<p><strong>Colin McLeod, Associate Professor & Executive Director, The Australian Centre for Retail Studies at Monash University, looks at the possible impact of the legislation on the retail industry.</strong> </p>
<p>The whole issue of tobacco is a challenging one for the retail industry. </p>
<p>The passage of the plain packaging bill yesterday adds to the complexity and if the bill succeeds in achieving the objectives stated by Heath Minister Nicola Roxon, retail sales of tobacco will fall.</p>
<p>In many retail sectors tobacco sales still represent between a fifth and a third of sales revenue. While it’s legitimate to argue that retailers should have weaned themselves off their reliance on a product category that is under substantial threat from regulation and community attitudes, this has been difficult.</p>
<p>Part of the problem for retailers is that while volumes have fallen as the proportion of the population who smokes reduces, the drop has been largely offset by upward changes in the price of tobacco products. </p>
<p>While some of this has been due to price increases by retailers and wholesalers, it’s worth noting that about 65% of the cost of a packet of cigarettes is federal excise duty plus GST. Although in fairness to our Federal Government, this is at the lower end of comparable OECD countries. </p>
<p>The net effect is that tobacco products have maintained their financial significance to the retailer as a share of turnover.</p>
<p>The other major issue for retailers is that they are members of the communities that they serve, and they have to find a balance between understanding and responding to community attitudes and running a viable business.</p>
<p>Tobacco represents a unique case, as other product categories can develop alternative strategies – for example McDonald’s can introduce healthy meals or Mars can reduce the fat content of their products in response to community concerns about childhood obesity.</p>
<p>But there is no middle ground on tobacco, as can be seen from the response of public health experts to yesterday’s announcement – we can’t find a healthier way to smoke.</p>
<p><strong>Mike Daube, Professor of Health Policy at Curtin University and Director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, considers why Australia’s tobacco plain packaging legislation is important for public health.</strong></p>
<p>First, it will help to reduce smoking in adults by encouraging them to quit, and in children by removing the tobacco industry’s last advertising vehicle.</p>
<p>It shows that a determined minister (Nicola Roxon) acting on expert advice and compelling evidence, supported by unanimous health and medical support, can face down massive (and massively misleading) advertising and public relations campaigns, as well as lobbying and legal campaigns by the world’s most lethal industry and its shadowy allies.</p>
<p>Despite some sadly misinformed speeches from a few oppposition politicians, all-party support for the plain packaging bill shows that Australian politicians can work together to reduce our largest preventable cause of death and disease.</p>
<p>But perhaps crucially, this is a precedent that, once set, will be followed over time by many other countries. The history of tobacco control shows that the domino theory justifies every tobacco executive’s worst nightmare. </p>
<p>Legislation (and other important measures, such as major mass media programs) are always fiercely opposed by tobacco interests; but when one country or state shows the art of the possible, the others follow.</p>
<p>The argument that “nobody else has done it” will no longer apply. Other countries and other governments will be encouraged by the Australian Government’s world-leading initiative, and will note that the tobacco industry’s credibility has fallen even further, aided by so many leaks and revelations about its deceptive tactics. </p>
<p>Public health campaigners will press for action, confident that they have all the ammunition they need, from research evidence to advocacy approaches.</p>
<p>The Australian tobacco industry is entirely controlled from London (British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco) and New York (Philip Morris). The global industry has poured tens of millions into opposing plain packaging here, partly because they know it will work, but above all because they are desperate to prevent measures like this from being introduced in other countries.</p>
<p>There is much yet to be done, but the tobacco wars are being won in Australia. Plain packaging serves as a beacon to the rest of the world, especially developing countries, where the new battlegrounds are forming and hundreds of millions of lives are at stake.</p>
<p><strong>Professor Rob Moodie, the inaugural Chair of Global Health at The University of Melbourne discusses the possible impact of the law in global public health.</strong></p>
<p>It’s well known that tobacco companies use packaging as a way of advertising and promoting their products, so this is a very significant legislation that strikes at the very heart of Big Tobacco. </p>
<p>And it’s clear from the reaction of tobacco companies that they’ve taken it seriously. Their willingness to invest in massive advertising campaigns and to vilify the health minister is evidence that this law will have an impact.</p>
<p>The passing of the Bill is particularly important as a prelude to the September <a href="http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/issues/ncdiseases.shtml">High-level Meeting on Non-communicable Diseases in New York</a> because it will help strengthen the global resolve to act against tobacco and its harms.</p>
<p>We should all remember that in the <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/jasoncronkhite/reputation-institutes-2009-global-reputation-pulse-free">Reputation Institute’s 2009 Global Reputation Pulse Report</a>, the tobacco industry comes last. It has repeatedly shown that it has very deep pockets and that it’s willing to threaten, sue and bully to get its own way.</p>
<p>The law is a very important leap forward because it starts to protect the public from what is a really dangerous product.</p>
<p>I’ve never had any doubts that tobacco should remain a legal product – it can now remain to be a legal product without being able to promote itself.</p>
<p>This move will give other countries encouragement to initiate public health measures that will help minimize tobacco’s harms for their populations. </p>
<p><strong>Deborah Gleeson, Research Fellow in the School of Public Health and Human Biosciences at La Trobe University, examines what this means for the negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.</strong></p>
<p>Australia is taking a leadership role in global tobacco control. This leadership must also extend to trade agreements that threaten the success of tobacco control by enabling Big Tobacco to take legal action against governments.</p>
<p>The burden of premature death from tobacco use is disproportionately borne by low and middle income countries, many of which have <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2011/en_tfi_global_report_2011_implementation_effective_measures.pdf">yet to introduce effective tobacco control policies</a>. </p>
<p>In many countries where smoking rates are high and economies are closely enmeshed with the tobacco industry, tobacco companies hold far more power than they do in Australia.</p>
<p>It is vitally important that the tobacco industry is not granted additional powers to take legal action to oppose tobacco control measures recommended by the World Health Organization.</p>
<p>The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement currently being negotiated between Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Peru, Vietnam and Malaysia is one such trade agreement. Three more rounds of negotiations are planned for later this year and member countries are now tabling draft text and making their positions clear.</p>
<p>The United States Government is seeking investor state dispute settlement provisions in this agreement that would grant powers to foreign companies to sue governments directly in international courts over public health legislation. Philip Morris International has indicated that it would sue the Australian Government if such provisions were included in the agreement.</p>
<p>Australia’s position against these provisions is strong. The Government’s <a href="http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trading-our-way-to-more-jobs-and-prosperity.pdf">Trade Policy Statement</a> released in April 2011 states it “will not accept provisions that limit its capacity to put health warnings or plain packaging requirements on tobacco products” (p. 14). </p>
<p>This is welcome news for public health advocates.</p>
<p>But Australia’s stance on the inclusion of these provisions for other members of the Trans Pacific Partnership is less clear. The provisions would make countries like Vietnam and Malaysia even more vulnerable to the bullying tactics of Big Tobacco.</p>
<p>Australia has indicated that it will not seek these clauses in its trade agreements with developing countries. To fully implement the policy, trade negotiators must actively reject efforts to include them in the regional agreement, and work with developing country members to strengthen their positions. </p>
<p>The next round of negotiations, in September, presents an ideal opportunity.</p>
<p>Australia must take its leadership role seriously and ensure that investor state dispute settlement is kept out of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. This will deal a big blow to the global bullying capacity of Big Tobacco.</p>
<p><strong>Luke Nottage, Associate Professor in the Sydney Law School at The University of Sydney, discusses the possible impact of the legislation on bilateral investment treaty law and practice.</strong></p>
<p>The plain packaging legislation passed by the House of Representatives stuck to the original proposal for implementation. </p>
<p>So Philip Morris Asia (PMA) is likely to commence investor-state arbitration (ISA) proceedings after expiry of the 3-month “cooling off” period under Art 10 of the 1993 Australia – Hong Kong bilateral investment treaty (calculated from notification of the dispute on 27 June). </p>
<p>The Gillard Government has closed off one avenue for settling this dispute by enacting legislation but delaying its implementation, to give more time for PMA and other companies to prepare for the new regime. </p>
<p>Even if the possibility of delaying implementation comes up in arbitral proceedings, perhaps due to arbitrators attempting to facilitate early settlement (‘Arb-med’), the Government will now find it politically difficult to backtrack in this respect. </p>
<p>Early and cost-effective settlement during arbitral proceedings will also become harder if the Government decides that it’s worth risking billions of dollars to compensate PMA in exchange for savings in many more billions spent annually on tobacco-related illnesses.</p>
<p>More cynically, the Gillard Government may be thinking that it will get votes in the short-term by coming down hard on tobacco companies with this legislation, without having to take much responsibility for a compensation payment if and when the tribunal reaches a final decision because that may take several years. </p>
<p>The recent escalation of the Gillard Government’s dispute with PMA is unfortunate for another reason. It will entrench the view in the April “Trade Policy Statement” that ISA should not be included in any future investment treaties. </p>
<p>This stance goes far beyond the Productivity Commission’s recommendation on ISA in its Inquiry Report last year, yet the Commission’s economic theory and evidence was already questionable. </p>
<p>Australia seems now to have thrown out the ISA baby with the bathwater. This has serious implications for economic integration initiatives particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, including ongoing FTA negotiations with Japan. </p>
<p>It’s a broader dimension often overlooked when people hear about PMA’s ISA claim related to the new legislation.</p>
<p>A longer version of Luke Nottage’s contribution can be found at on the <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/japaneselaw/">“Japanese Law and the Asia-Pacific” blog</a>.</p>
<p><em>An earlier version of this story incorrectly said the legislation had become law. It has passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting passage through the Senate. The story has now been corrected. The error was made by an editor.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3053/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>My work has received funding for research and programs (but not personal) from standard health funding groups (research funding agencies; health promotion foundations; health departments; charitable foundations).
I am on a variety of health boards and committees – Healthway Board; NHMRC Prevention and Community Health Committee; Australian National Preventive Health Agency Advisory Council; among others. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Deborah Gleeson does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Her part-time position at La Trobe University is funded by an ARC Linkage Grant, however the grant is not relevant to the subject of this article. She is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia and active in the People's Health Movement.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Nottage receives funding, for research related to this comment, from the Australia-Japan Foundation which is part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for the project on "Fostering a Common Culture in Cross-Border Dispute Resolution: Australia, Japan and the Asia-Pacific".</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Moodie is affiliated with Australian National Preventive Health Agency Advisory Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin McLeod 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>Legislation requiring tobacco products to be in plain packaging was passed by the House of Representatives last night. This is the first such measure in the world to come so close to becoming law. We asked…Mike Daube, Professor of Health Policy, Curtin UniversityColin McLeod, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Business & Economics, The University of MelbourneDeborah Gleeson, Lecturer in Public Health, La Trobe UniversityLuke Nottage, Associate Professor, Sydney Law School, University of SydneyRob Moodie, Professor of Global Health, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/28912011-08-17T04:59:12Z2011-08-17T04:59:12ZCheers to health warning labels for alcoholic drinks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2982/original/3600947113_fe7208d8a8_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Alcohol is currently exempt from the labelling requirements that all other products we eat and drink have to follow.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Klearchos Kapoutsis</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite known risks of drinking, health and safety warning labels have been noticeably absent from alcoholic beverages in Australia. </p>
<p>But that might be about to change, with the Government today seeking feedback from consumer groups on the recommendations of the <a href="http://theconversation.com/food-industry-digs-in-heels-over-traffic-light-labels-311">Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy</a>. </p>
<p>The independent review chaired by Dr Neal Blewett released its report – <a href="http://www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/Content/48C0548D80E715BCCA257825001E5DC0/$File/Labelling%20Logic_2011.pdf">Labelling Logic</a> – on January 28, 2011. It contains 61 recommendations, four of which pertain to warning labels on alcoholic drinks.</p>
<p><em>Professor of Population Health & Chair of Social Research in Alcohol, Robin Room answers some questions about why we need warning labels on alcoholic beverages and what form they should take.</em> </p>
<p><strong>Why label at all?</strong></p>
<p>Alcohol is a very dirty drug because it affects a lot of different organs of the body.</p>
<p>The majority of Australians have a general idea that it’s not too good for the liver to drink a lot but what most don’t know is that alcohol is <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2007/pr175.html">implicated in a number of cancers</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/">International Agency for Research on Cancer </a>declared some time ago that <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol96/index.php">alcohol is a human carcinogen</a> and has reiterated the warning in a recent report.</p>
<p>People generally have an idea that it’s not a good idea to drive a car when you’ve been drinking but again, most don’t know that a substantial proportion of people who die in drowning accidents have had quite a bit to drink. </p>
<p>That message is on one of the warning labels in Sweden – half of all the Swedes who drown are drunk when they do so.</p>
<p>Warning labels are a good step but they’re not a whole policy, they’re a piece of what needs to be done about alcohol policy in Australia.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2974/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.18.06_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2974/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.18.06_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2974/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.18.06_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2974/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.18.06_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2974/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.18.06_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2974/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.18.06_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2974/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.18.06_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Warning labels for alcoholic drinks proposed the the AERF.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>What is the local context for alcohol labelling?</strong></p>
<p>In Australia, as in many other countries, alcohol is not labelled in the same way that food is. So it’s exempt from the usual requirements for anything else you take into your body, which are required to have labels listing all ingredients and composition from a nutritional viewpoint. </p>
<p>That’s a peculiarity that has come out of history but it doesn’t make sense because you are taking in calories or kilojoules into your body when you drink.</p>
<p>In recent weeks, <a href="http://www.drinkwise.org.au/c/dw">DrinkWise</a>, which is an industry-funded social aspects organization, has come out with voluntary standards on labelling, which they hope 80% of the industry will follow.</p>
<p>And yesterday the <a href="http://aerf.com.au/home.aspx">Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation (AERF)</a> released a <a href="http://aerf.com.au/showcase/AER%20Policy%20Paper_FINAL.pdf">report</a> calling for a Government-imposed health warning label system. Their proposed label is much more detailed and much more rigorous than what is currently being implemented by the industry under the DrinkWise initiative.</p>
<p>The AERF recommends rotating five warning labels because one of the problems with warning labels is that you get very used to it after a while – as you do with anything else you see every day – and you don’t notice them.</p>
<p>If you change the message periodically and if there are a variety of messages being displayed, then people are much more likely to notice them and go on noticing them.</p>
<p>The main precedents for this kind of labelling is on cigarette packaging but there is another example for alcohol warning labels in Sweden. Every advertisement for alcohol in Swedish newspapers has to dedicate an eighth of its area to a health message. And there are 11 warning messages to choose from, put forward by the Swedish public health institute.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2981/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.38.27_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2981/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.38.27_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2981/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.38.27_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2981/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.38.27_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2981/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.38.27_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2981/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.38.27_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2981/original/Screen_shot_2011-08-17_at_2.38.27_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Warning labels for alcoholic drinks proposed DrinkWise.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>What kind of labels are effective?</strong></p>
<p>The best practice is firstly to <em>have</em> warning labels, to make them quite specific about particular health impacts to worry about and avoid, to have a variety of different messages in rotation and ensure they are in legible type and big enough to read.</p>
<p>The evidence we have is primarily from the American warning labels, which don’t fit several of the criteria. </p>
<p>But we know people noticed the labels and that they noticed them more when they were new than they do now. And the studies show a large number of people can remember what the warning label says.</p>
<p>Naturally, regular drinkers see the labels more regularly, which is not a bad thing. If you’re drinking in a pub, you tend not to see the labels but then most people who drink quite a lot drink out of a can or a bottle.</p>
<p>We know some conversations were started by the warning labels in the United States but beyond that there really isn’t much evidence on the actual effect on behaviour.</p>
<p>So we’re operating on the general idea that this is a good thing to do and it’s a step in the right direction. </p>
<p>If we do it better than the American effort then there’s a good chance it’ll have some effects on behaviour. But the best evidence of warning labels having an actual effect on behaviour is again from cigarettes rather than from alcohol. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2975/original/duilimit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2975/original/duilimit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2975/original/duilimit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2975/original/duilimit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2975/original/duilimit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2975/original/duilimit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2975/original/duilimit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alcohol warning label from the United States.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>What kind of labels do other countries have?</strong></p>
<p>Alcohol labelling as an idea has been around for quite a while. The United States has had warning labels on alcoholic drinks now for about 20 years. It resulted from a push in the US Congress for about ten years. </p>
<p>They have a single warning label and the rules on how it has to be displayed aren’t very restrictive, so often it’s sideways or small print or unreadable type or in white on gold. And there’s quite a lot of information on it. </p>
<p>The labels in the United States warn against drinking during pregnancy, driving cars or operating machinery while drinking, all at the same time. It tries to wrap everything up into a single label.</p>
<p>A number of other countries also have labels but often they’re very general in what they say, such as drinking can be harmful to your health, and its left at that.</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><em><strong>Should alcohol contain warning labels? What form should they take? Have your say below</strong></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2891/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Room heads a research centre that receives funding from the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation (AERF), a nonprofit organisation which is one of the bodies mentioned in the article. He receives funding from NHMRC and ARC for alcohol policy-relevant research.</span></em></p>Despite known risks of drinking, health and safety warning labels have been noticeably absent from alcoholic beverages in Australia. But that might be about to change, with the Government today seeking…Robin Room, Director, Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol & Drug Centre; Professor of Population Health & Chair of Social Research in Alcohol, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/23942011-08-08T04:58:13Z2011-08-08T04:58:13ZForest certification: a small step towards sustainability<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2441/original/certified_timber_CIFOR.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Certifying timber gives some level of certainty that forest products are sustainable.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">CIFOR/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It can be hard to know whether the forest products you buy have been produced sustainably. Forestry certifications were established to give a bit more certainty, but what do they really mean? When you buy a certified product, are you necessarily helping the environment?</p>
<h2>A short history of certification</h2>
<p>The two international forestry certifications - Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certifications (PEFC) - have had an interesting history over the past 20 years. There are often clouded interpretations and miss-interpretations of how each came about. Regardless, forestry certifications have been a powerful and leading force in the battle for the environment.</p>
<p>According to environmental NGOs, governments failed to agree on how to address rapid deforestation, mostly in the tropics. As a result NGOs stepped up and created what they believe to be a workable global certification system, FSC. </p>
<p>Yet another account is that the economically poor but forest-rich tropical nations refused to bow to western NGO pressure, forcing them to take up a forestry standard that could be used as some form of trade barrier. </p>
<p>Scholars question the role and effectiveness of international forest certifications. They say the vast majority of forest certificates issued are in the economically rich temperate and boreal forest nations, not the poor tropical nations where most deforestation occurs.</p>
<h2>FSC, PEFC: what’s the difference?</h2>
<p>There are only two international forestry schemes. The first and original is FSC. It was started in 1992 mostly by a group of North American environmental groups with WWF in the USA as the driving force. </p>
<p>FSC, generally speaking, is a top down approach to forestry certification. Corey Brinkema – US President of FSC - told an Australian forest industry conference in Melbourne last year that FSC has a guiding set of principles on what is sustainable forestry. He said that aggressive action from NGOs such as WWF and the Nature Conservancy, puts pressure on commercial organisations to take up the FSC scheme. </p>
<p>PEFC has also been around since the mid 1990s. The PEFC was originally called the Pan European Forestry Certification, but in 1998 changed its name to reflect its growing international role and the method. </p>
<p>PEFC is a set of principles on sustainable forestry practices. Rather than being a certification, PEFC is a meta-standard that verifies the quality of any national forestry certification schemes. </p>
<p>There are currently 167 national forest schemes around the world. Some national schemes are very robust while others only cover the basic parameters of good forestry practices. PEFC endorses national schemes that can achieve a high level of performance, based on the principles set out by PEFC in Geneva. </p>
<p>Currently 37 national schemes are signed up to PEFC, with 35 achieving full PEFC recognition. China and Uruguay are recent signatories to PEFC but are not yet recognised and therefore not able to use the PEFC name and logo. </p>
<p>Achieving full PEFC recognition is not a simple task. According to Kayt Watts, CEO of the Australian Forest Standard, it took eight years to develop the Australian standard and a further three years to gain full PEFC recognition. </p>
<p>Other national schemes take as long to manoeuvre through the recognition process.</p>
<h2>Different strokes for different forests</h2>
<p>There have been a number of comparisons of the two schemes, FSC and PEFC. However the differences are not that great, to the point that many governmental authorities and other bodies around the world consider them equal. </p>
<p>The one overriding difference is that FSC attempts to have a single standard that is applied globally, while PEFC is flexible to national characteristics by certifying existing national schemes. In terms of size, PEFC has more than twice as much forest area under its certification than FSC. </p>
<p>The truth is that forests around the world are not all the same. Forestry practices in the extremely cold boreal forests, where long-fibre softwood trees grow very slowly, are completely different to those in the tropics, where fast growth hardwood short-fibre varieties are the norm.</p>
<p>Large-scale monoculture plantation forestry is best employed in regions where tree growth is extremely rapid, such as the tropics. As the yield of timber per hectare is incredibly high it means that only small areas of land need to be cleared on each harvest cycle. </p>
<p>In the case of slow-growing temperate or boreal trees, managed forestry techniques work better. Although a large amount of land needs to be cleared in order to yield the same volume of wood, well-managed methods of selective clearing ensure a sustainable ecosystem and soil quality. </p>
<p>However, despite the vast differences in forest management techniques across the world the two schemes appear to successfully satisfy the requirements of sustainable forestry. </p>
<h2>So how does Australia stack up?</h2>
<p>There are continual debates about how sustainable managed natural forestry systems are in Australia. These have particularly been raised by some groups in recent times in Victoria. </p>
<p>Managed forestry, completely different to plantations, has been the staple method of forest systems operating in regions such as Scandinavia for the past 100 years at least. Not only has the forest industry in Scandinavia grown to become the region’s dominant industry sector but forest cover has increased year on year. </p>
<p>For example, Sweden has a land mass of 44 million hectares, and it has 23 million hectares of forest cover, which includes 22 million hectares of production forest. The Swedes appear to have managed to achieve a nation that is green and environmentally responsible, yet at the same time the vast majority of its forest cover is used for production. Both FSC and PEFC operate in Sweden with almost the entire country covered under either one or often both schemes. </p>
<h2>Does certification work for developing nations?</h2>
<p>Generally the forestry certifications schemes are used between government and business as a mechanism to ensure that wood products are being grown, harvested, processed and sold sustainably. The average person in the community is, to date, reluctant to pay for additional certifications that prove the environmental characteristics of a product. </p>
<p>This poses an issue for the new regions coming into the international wood trade. The voluntary certifications such as FSC and PEFC are costly. Poor countries in the developing world find it difficult to afford certifications. Suppliers from the established nations have a different scale of economy and are therefore not faced with the same cost problems in getting certifications. </p>
<p>This point has been raised by scholars exploring certifications. It adds to the proposition that certifications can act as a trade barrier against developing nations. </p>
<p>Further to this point is that FSC do not readily certify forests that have been planted after 1994. The fact that the developing nations only started their timber industry in the mid to late 1990s also supports the proposition that certifications can act as a trade barrier. </p>
<p>Frederick List and Ha-joon Chang both have made the point that the developed nations have effectively “kicked away the ladder”, taking away the opportunities for poor countries to achieve the same level of development as the rich western nations.</p>
<h2>Certification replaced by law</h2>
<p>Forestry certifications may be questioned in the future, or their importance may reduce over time with the introduction of international laws on the export and import of illegal wood products. Less than 10% of the world’s total forest area is covered by certifications. Addressing the legality of the international wood trade may be the most appropriate method of dealing with forestry concerns. </p>
<p>Deforestation is a major problem; however, the reality is that land is cleared for a number of pressing reasons. Economic development for plantations and palm oil obviously receive a great deal of media coverage. But the amount of forest land in the developing world each year cleared for food crops is significant and fills a legitimate need in that region with a high populations growth rates. </p>
<p>The complexity of the forestry issue is only partially addressed with international forestry certifications.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2394/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phillip Lawrence consults to Asia Pulp and Paper in Indonesia and China on environmental issues.</span></em></p>It can be hard to know whether the forest products you buy have been produced sustainably. Forestry certifications were established to give a bit more certainty, but what do they really mean? When you…Dr Phillip Lawrence, PhD Scholar, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.