An Investigation of Food Labelling - Term Paper Example

An Investigation Of Food Labelling A woman buys a popsicle from a roadside vendor and inquires whether it contains cochineal extract or carmine dye. The vendor checks the label and assures the lady that it uses common food colouring. Minutes later the woman is admitted to a hospital for life threatening anaphylactic shock from a reaction to the colouring in the product. A check of the popsicle's label indicated that it only had the entry 'colour added'. Labelling can be as important as this life-threatening event or may simply be health conscious consumers counting calories. There is an increased responsibility when serving food to the public. Diners will inquire about the ingredients to avoid allergens or potential carcinogens. They may be sensitive to the environmental origins of the product. It may be important to know the preservatives, emulsifiers, antioxidants, or acidity regulators. Tracking the ingredients through a restaurant kitchen can be one of the most important services the facility can provide to its customers. To begin an investigation of food labelling it's necessary to determine who is responsible for the labels on food. Food is subjected to local laws, regional laws, and international standards. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulate labelling, but the individual states have varying standards. In June 1989, the European Union adopted the first directive to mandate control with the Official Control of Foodstuffs (Jukes 2007). However, individual member nations still have local authority for the labelling of food. The European Commission is currently reviewing the directives and a concrete proposal is expected sometime in 2007 (Brans, 2006, p.2). Member nations continue to set their own labelling standards. The World Trade Organization (WTO) (2002) has insisted that labels contain only "sound scientific or consumer protection criteria" as a means to reduce trade barriers (National Foreign Trade Council, p.9). With the myriad of organisations and motivations that drive food labelling, it is not surprising that it has led to confusion at times and resulted in information that is almost not usable. With the variety of governing bodies, the content of the food label can vary widely. Ingredient requirements, nutrition format, and language all come into question. Individualised convenience labelling for environmental concerns and country of origin can add further confusion. A recent system proposed by the UK Food Standards Agency would simplify labels with a traffic light system. According to Hall (2007), "The simple system uses red, amber and green signs to show at a glance if a food contains high, medium or low amounts of salt, fat, saturates and sugar". Manufacturers that fear a big red light on their products are fighting the system. Yet, labelling may need to be simplified. A recent study revealed that less than half the restaurant patrons would read a food label if available (Krukowski, Harvey-Berino, & Kolodinsky, 2006, p.2). Simply conveying the nutritional value and calories is difficult enough, but there is also the issue of language. Recently some member nations of the EU have called for language uniformity. According to Borowiec (2002), "The latest EU edict specifies that no country should "impose" its language on food products but should use the language most understood across Europe". To most people this means English, but the French is hotly contesting it. Language becomes an even greater issue in international trade. Though labelling can be confusing, it is something the consumer wants. The issue of Genetically Modified (GM) food had been a subject of constant debate. During the debate, Europeans illustrated their commitment to fair labelling practices. According to Golan, "This is particularly true in the EU where even before labelling was required, many grocery stores and food chains had developed non-biotech product lines" (p.34). New technology has brought about greater demand for appropriate labelling, but there are still more pragmatic reasons for consumer demand. While calories, trans fats, and nutrition can guide us to a healthy lifestyle, allergens can be life threatening. This concern is especially relevant to restaurants that have the responsibility to monitor their food's ingredients. The US FDA has identified a list of allergens that they require be labelled with plain language. The list includes, "milk; eggs; fish such as bass, flounder, and cod; crustacean and shellfish such as crab, lobster, and shrimp; tree nuts such as almonds, walnuts, and pecans; peanuts; wheat; and soybean" (Bren, 2006, p.37). Bren (2006) further reports that 150 people die in the United States each year from allergic reactions to food (p.37). Consumers have other concerns about the food that they eat. There are a wide range of environmentally conscious labels for the benefit of consumers. According to Kuchment (2007) they are designed to, "...profess to safeguard salmon, preserve rain forests, protect migratory birds and allow cows and chickens to roam free". There are labels that have trendy and sometimes misleading names. Food may be labelled 'Bird Friendly', 'Grass Fed', 'Seafood Safe', or 'Organic'. While these may seem to be easily understood, other labels might actually be designed to mislead. Milk labelled "rBGH free", a growth hormone, must be accompanied by a statement from the FDA that says they have "... found no difference between milk with and without rBGH" (Hattam 2006). However, other studies have found a connection to rBGH and health problems in cows and people. It is no small wonder the consumer is confused by food labelling. If confusion was not enough, there is also the issue of believability. Can consumers rely on the labelling information? Aside from errors, differences in measurement techniques, and variations in serving size there may also be incorrect information due to fraud. GM contamination has been found in some grain products as the newly developed foods cross-pollinate non-GM food sources. While this may be simply an oversight, a recent study indicates labelling fraud may be widespread. According to Ravilious (2006), "In 2002 the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) carried out the first DNA survey of basmati rice sold in the UK. It found that only 54 per cent of the bags labelled as such contained pure basmati rice". No matter what information the label contains, it is of no value if it is not credible. Food labelling is a critical part of the food industry. It guides us to good health and away from life threatening choices. Yet, the complexity and myriad concerns over the content of the label make it a difficult subject to reach agreement on. While standards are set, manufacturers and distributors will always attempt to exploit the labelling and may even resort to fraud. It's vital that we understand not only the content of the label, but also its limitations and usefulness. References Borowiec, A. (2002). Label the French enraged: European Union wants food labels written in English. Insight on the News. Brans, H. (2006). Trade policy monitoring: EU food labeling review. Global Agriculture Information Network Report, 1-3. Bren, L. (2006). Food labels identify allergins more clearly. FDA Consumer, 37-38. Golan, E. (2001). Biotech Food Labeling. Economics of Food Labeling, 33-37. Hall, E. (2007). U.K. groups engage in ad war over food labels [Electronic version]. Advertising Age, 78(3). from EBSCO. Hattam, J. (2006). Truth in labeling [Electronic version]. Sierra, 91(6). from EBSCO Jukes, D. (2007, January 5). Food law - Key events. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/history.htm Krukowski, R., Harvey-Berino, J., & Kolodinsky, J. (2006). How will consumers use restaurant food labeling. Nutrition Research Newsletter, 25(7), 1-2. Kuchment, A. (2007, March 12). What's on your label. Newsweek, 11. National Foreign Trade Council. (2002). Position and recommendations: The Doha development agenda. Washington, DC: Author. Ravilious, K. (2006). Buyer beware [Electronic version]. New Scientist, 192(2577). from EBSCO. Read More