Food labelling scheme exploited and distorted by industry: expert
ELEANOR HALL: It took years to begin, but the Federal Government is now mid-way through a multi-million dollar food labelling change.
The labels are intended to arrest the rise of obesity, diabetes and heart disease in Australia.
But a leading public health professor has lashed out at what he says is a good idea that's being badly implemented as Tom Nightingale explains.
TOM NIGHTINGALE: A public health professor was in a supermarket in Melbourne at the weekend when he noticed something that didn't seem right.
MARK LAWRENCE: I saw a number of liquorice type products, in fact they were in an aisle that was the aisle was headed the lolly section, so we've got lollies/confectionary getting two and a half stars.
TOM NIGHTINGALE: Mark Lawrence is a professor in public health nutrition at Deakin University.
For the past 12 months, he's been keeping a close eye on Australia's health star rating for processed foods.
MARK LAWRENCE: When those products are getting quite a significant promotional boost from this scheme, there's clearly a disconnect between how that promotion campaign is being implemented versus what the core dietary guideline recommendations are advising.
TOM NIGHTINGALE: In the past week, the Assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash has launched phase two of the new system.
This phase involves $2.1 million being spent on advertising and promotion; letting people know it exists and encouraging food manufacturers to use it in their packaging.
Professor Lawrence thinks it's a good idea that's been badly mishandled.
MARK LAWRENCE: Its intention has got a lot of positives about it; I mean its best implementation it would be helping consumers discriminate between similar products, but its design is flawed and its implementation in the year since its launch has also been showed to be flawed.
TOM NIGHTINGALE: Has it been proven to be such though?
MARK LAWRENCE: I think it's self-evident when we're seeing that it's being used disproportionally to promote and be used for marketing those foods which paradoxically we're encouraging people to consume less of.
TOM NIGHTINGALE: It took long and difficult negotiations between food and health groups to bring star ratings in.
It all led to a political storm last year when a website linked to the change was taken down, shortly after it went live.
The star ratings are a compromise after the food industry didn't agree to traffic light-style labels.
Not everyone is a critic; the consumer group Choice is campaigning to pressure companies to adopt it.
Aloysa Hourigan from Nutrition Australia says the new scheme is not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
ALOYSA HOURIGAN: It's only been around for a short time, but so far the supermarket chains, the major supermarket chains have taken it up for their products. And some of the major food companies like Nestle have also gone ahead with the idea, so hopefully with those bigger players taking it on, it might be taken up by more.
TOM NIGHTINGALE: Is there any problems with it becoming apparent or not really?
ALOYSA HOURIGAN: We know it has limitations, you know no one food selection, guide, tool of any sort is always perfect, but it does give people a bit of a ball park look, you know a bit of a quick visual as to whether the food is healthy or not.
TOM NIGHTINGALE: The Food and Grocery Council wasn't available for an interview this morning but a spokesman told The World Today it's too early to tell if it is working well or not, and the new system gives consumers more information.
He says there are now more than 1,000 products carrying the star ratings.
ELEANOR HALL: Tom Nightingale with that report.
Source: ABC Radio, Tom Nightingale, July 13th 2015
