What Could Be Easier Than A Traffic Light On A Food Package Telling Us The Item Is Healthy (Green), So-So (Amber) Or Unhealthy (Red), But Most Of The UK Food Industry Is Fighting Mad And Just Sees Red

Just two food companies have adopted the strategy and five supermarket chains are supporting the scheme. But a coalition of 24 companies and supermarkets have launched instead a £4 million ($7.9 million, €6 million) campaign to promote their own new labeling system that displays how the product matches up in percentage terms to maximum recommended daily guidelines -- they call it Guideline Daily Amounts.

There’s no denying the traffic light system is simple. There aren’t many people around who don’t understand the meaning of green, amber and red. But to the food industry it is too simplistic and scientifically inaccurate. So while the government’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) has scraped together around £1 million ($1.9 million, €1.5 million) for a series of TV ads this month to promote its system, the food industry is countering with an 18-month £4 million ($6 million, €4.6 million) campaign to promote its scheme.

Three of the biggest food companies fighting the government are Kellogg’s of cereal fame, Nestle, which is concerned for its cereal and chocolate business and Danone, maker of yoghurt and fromage frais. The UK breakfast cereal market is thought to be worth some £1.3 billion annually ($2.5 billion, €2 billion) and since many breakfast cereals are high in fats, salt or sugar, it is understandable those companies are not keen to have red stop lights plastered on its boxes. Nestle says that under the traffic light system all of the company’s chocolates would be red-lighted. And although yoghurts are usually marketed as being healthy, under the government standards they are considered junk food.

ftm background

UK Commercial Cable and Terrestrial Networks Say Outlook For Kids TV Programming Bleak As British Regulator Proposes Junk Food Ad Ban In Move That Will Cost Millions In Lost Revenue
Obesity is considered the number one growth disease in Europe, and it is getting worse the most in the under 16s. Could all those junk foods high in fat, salt and sugar that are heavily advertised in TV programs aimed at the under 16s be a contributing cause? The UK TV regulator thinks so, and has shocked commercial broadcasters by wanting to ban such ads aimed at kids starting in January.

With Obesity on the Increase, European Countries Target Food Advertising, Especially That Aimed at Kids, While Food Manufacturers Greatly Increase Their Spend to Promote Healthy Food
Food advertising in France next year must contain a health warning against high fat or sugar content or the manufacturer could face a 1.5% tax on its advertising spend.

Food Ads Under Attack Again: New Survey Says Kids Think “Fat-Free” and “Diet” Are Synonymous with “Nutritious”
As the food industry globally works on self-regulations in advertising various fatty or salty foods to the under 12s, a new survey has come along suggesting certain buzz words like “fat-free” and “diet” need to be fully explained, or not used, since kids equate those words with healthy foods.

As the EC Declares War on Obesity, the Food Industry Changes Its TV Advertising. Their Voluntary Theme - In the Hope Regulators Won’t Ban Their Ads Aimed at Kids - Becomes “Eat and Live Healthy”
Europeans used to scoff at the fat American – there were so many of them (especially those who insisted on wearing shorts to emphasize their figure) -- but now obesity has reached epidemic proportions in Europe, and the regulatory fingers are wagging at television food advertisers. The alleged villains are not just the junk food outlets, but also household-name food manufacturers who target their heavily sugared or salted products in programs watched by the under 12s.

Junk Food Joins Alcohol and Tobacco as TV Advertising No-Go Areas
The reason we and our kids are fat is because we succumb to all that junk food advertising on television instead of eating healthy nutritional salads, vegetables and the like. Actually, it’s not our fault as parents; it’s the kids fault since they are the ones who after watching all those television ads directed at them are dragging us to those fast-food outlets

What those companies and others such as Unilever and Kraft are promoting is a system that gives consumers a guideline for the maximum daily amounts of sugar, salt, fat, and calories they should consume each day and how one portion of an item, in percentage terms, fits into those guidelines. In other words, go ahead an eat a product that is high in fats and sugar but note the percentage numbers so you don’t exceed 100% when eating something else at the same meal or later. You have to do and remember your arithmetic.

The government says that is all too complicated. Far simpler just to warn people to stay away from those foods that according to its formula are not healthy.

It’s all part of a continuing battle between the food manufacturers and the UK government on health issues. The government is determined to fight what it sees as an obesity epidemic, not only because it’s not healthy to be fat but because its National Health Service spends millions each year on fat-related illnesses.

OFCOM, the government’s broadcast regulator, sent the first shot across the food industry’s bow last November when it said ads for what it considers junk food are to be banned in all TV programs aimed at the under 16s. The commercial broadcasters went mad at the thought of all that lost revenue – the regulator said it would cost them some £39 million ($74 million, €57 million) in lost advertising revenues but the broadcasters say that is a low ball estimate.

It could have been worse for the broadcasters. The medical community, nutritionalists, and various parents groups had lobbied for all such advertising to be banned before 9 p.m., but the regulator thought that much lost advertising could really financially damage the broadcasters – so, yes, the government does believe that while eating healthy is wise and necessary there are financial limits to how much it is willing to hurt the economy in order to get the nation healthy again.

The food industry didn’t take kindly to that advertising ban, either. Cereal marketing is a cradle to the grave campaign. Kellogg and Nestle together spend around £70 million ($130 million, €100 million) annually in UK advertising, and much of that is television advertising aimed at the very young. Get them eating your cereal in the morning when they’re young and you have them for life!

Both government bodies say the lobbying against the restrictions is the most ferocious they have ever experienced. But the government is fighting back. A minister, Nigel Griffiths, has warned the industry that if it doesn’t accept the traffic light system voluntarily then it could face legislation forcing them to. The FSA’s edicts are voluntary, although OFCOM’s TV advertising ban is mandatory.

This is, of course, the perfect type of story where a local newspaper can take a national issue and see how it plays locally, and the UK regional press has gone to town with this one. By and large the public seems to prefer the traffic light system although they recognize it may be overly simplistic, and they accept that the system proposed by the food manufacturers provides more accurate information. But they also ask who has the time or inclination to keep adding up the numbers to see if limits are being reached?

Typical reader comments as found on the Peterborough Evening Telegraph web site: “It’s too difficult adding up the percentages as you shop”. And “The traffic light system is something that everyone knows. It’s pretty easy to understand at a glance.” A supermarket manager whose store is using the traffic lights, said, “People have been very enthusiastic.”

The Yorkshire Evening Post took an online poll that said 61% supported the traffic light system (As an aside what a great example of the convergence of print running a national story and the newspaper’s web site conducting a poll).

The newspaper quoted Paul Gateley, professor of exercise and obesity at Leeds Metropolitan University (we now show our age since we never realized there were such professors!) who cited the opinions of children who attended Leeds summer fat camp when the system was tested last year.

“They thought the traffic light system was simple and easy to use, but as they went through the educational process they realized it was limited. And that is where the other system is more effective. People don’t just eat one food, they eat combinations.”

But then the newspaper quoted Sue Davies, chief food policy adviser for Which?, the country’s leading consumer group, who advised, “Many of us shop in a hurry and don’t have the time to examine the nutrition information panel in detail. Clear traffic lights on the front of packs are crucial. “

So the marketing battle lines are drawn. The food manufacturers have the money to wage a long campaign, to bring lawsuits if necessary, anything to stop or delay what they believe could destroy much of their business. At the same time the industry continues working to increase the nutritional value of its products (the amount of salt in breakfast cereals, for instance, is down around 25% over the past couple of years). But the government has the power of legislation and that the industry fears more than anything.

Although the program is young there is some evidence that the food manufacturers have good reason to worry. One of the supermarkets reported that in its testing of the traffic light system last year sales of red-lighted chicken Madras fell by 40%.