New food labels 'baffle consumers'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.NEW food labelling rules due to take effect in the next few weeks will leave people confused, bewildered and misinformed, according to a study published yesterday.
The study, based on polls and interviews with 262 women, says the rules could prove 'positively misleading'. It was commissioned by the Co-op, one of Britain's biggest retailers, which has taken a lead on nutritional labelling and plans to keep its own formula even though this may render it liable to prosecution.
The regulations, part of a 1990 European directive, come into effect before the end of the year. They do not make nutritional labelling compulsory but require a common format where labels are provided. These must show quantities of energy, fat, fibre, sugar and other contents per 100 grams.
But they will make technically illegal the system devised by the Coronary Prevention Group and used by the Co-op, which gives an additional rating - high, medium or low - to the numerical values.
The survey showed that more than half those questioned reached the wrong conclusions about the sugar, fat and calorie content of products using the new labels. With some products, the failure rate was as high as 85 per cent. Consumers also 'don't understand the meaning of sodium - they do not relate it to salt'.
The study concluded that numerical information alone is 'virtually incomprehensible' to the consumer. It suggests devising a 'benchmark' system for the fat content of foods, similar to the units of alcohol introduced by the Health Education Authority.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments