I enjoyed the article in this week's New Scientist, which highlighted the lack of precision in calorie labelling. Essentially, not all calories are equal since the complexity and texture of the food can influence the net amount of energy that we absorb. What intrigued me, however, was the implication that we might need to revisit calorie labelling and provide much more detailed scientific information to consumers. This is where we get to the interesting – and really challenging – part for those of us who are committed to providing advice to consumers, based on sound science. Do consumers really want to know about the toxicology of dioxins that might have got into their pork, or do they want reassurance that the Agency's advice that pork is ok to eat (or not) is based on very careful evaluation by independent experts? Likewise, just how much nutritional information is appropriate on a label, given the pressures that most people are under when they are dragging their kids around the supermarket?
My own view is that we do need to make the science transparent so that those who are interested can drill down to see how our expert committees have reached their conclusions. But for the harassed mum or dad in the supermarket, a simple front-of-pack label that is helpful in making healthier choices is the best option – but this does have to be based on the best available science. Talking of which, we will be consulting shortly on the proposed way forward for front-of-pack labels, based on the latest consumer research, so please let us know what you think.
PS I would like to see the evidence for the assertion in New Scientist's editorial that the food that is best for you and the environment is slow, fresh and often locally produced. I don't know about slow, but fresh and local can be misleading, both in terms of nutritional content and greenhouse gas emissions. Far better to focus on a diet with plenty of fruit and veg, and not too much red meat and dairy.