Food labelling must be clear & pro-consumer

Dinesh C. Sharma

Science Commentator

THE Covid-19 pandemic has exposed deficiencies in the country’s health system and also health vulnerabilities of a large section of the Indian population. During successive pandemic waves, experts warned that people with underlying medical conditions were more vulnerable. Such pre-existing conditions include hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, etc. The risk factors for such lifestyle diseases are well known — unhealthy diet, physical inactivity etc. The high pre-existing prevalence of non-communicable diseases exacerbated the burden on the health system.

On the other hand, the prevalence of lifestyle diseases may have gone up because of disruption in healthcare for non-Covid conditions for a substantial period during the pandemic. So, any step taken to prevent non-communicable diseases is welcome. One such could be the recent move of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to introduce a new labelling system for junk food, provided it is implemented honestly.

The issue of the front-of-pack labelling on processed and ultra-processed food products has been hanging fire for a long time. Big food companies globally have been trying hard to stall any kind of health labelling on their products ever since the World Health Organisation in 2015 recommended the governments introduce health labels that are easy to understand and interpret. Such labels should help consumers to identify healthier products.

The currently used back-of-pack labelling provides ‘nutrition information’, such as the amount of protein, fat, carbohydrates, sugar etc and also calories. On the front side of a pack, companies are allowed to make health claims. Both are problematic. The ‘nutrition information’ provides some idea about the product but does not help consumers in making a healthy choice. And health claims, in any case, are misleading and unsubstantiated. The idea of the front-of-pack health labelling is supposed to address all this, but it has also become contentious.

The food industry does not want any health labelling on junk food and is working overtime to have the front-of-pack labelling diluted to the extent that it becomes meaningless. Among various options of labelling available are ‘multiple traffic light’ labels, health star labelling, warning labels and Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) etc. Traffic light labels use red, green and amber coloured symbols to inform the consumer if the product is healthy or not, with red indicating ‘unhealthy’. Health star rating, on the other hand, rates a product on a nutrition and health scale, and gives stars. Warning labels directly warn consumers about excess amounts of sugar, saturated fats etc.

All of them are being used in different countries and some research data is available about their effectiveness or otherwise.

The Indian food regulator has been discussing this issue with the food industry and consumer organisations. It recently discussed with the industry and consumer bodies the findings of a survey on different labelling options, conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A). It has concluded that ‘summary ratings of health star and warning labels turn out to be most preferred from the perspective of ease of identification, understanding, reliability and influence’, and, among the two, the ‘health star rating appears more acceptable’.

Predictably, both the food industry and the FSSAI have lapped up this finding and are in favour of a health star rating. In any case, the front-of-pack labelling will be voluntary for many years and will apply only to certain categories of products whenever it becomes mandatory. The industry will be happy with the health star ratings because the whole idea originated from the junk food industry in Europe when labelling was first discussed. Giving a ‘health’ tag to a junk food product — even if it is a single star — defeats the very purpose of discouraging consumers from buying junk. Star ratings can be easily manipulated, as the experience from elsewhere shows.

The eagerness of the FSSAI in tilting towards the star rating is suspect. Its choice of the IIM-A and a private consulting firm to jointly conduct the study is also not above board. Given the high industry stakes involved in labelling, ideally, the FSSAI should have commissioned public-funded research institutes with decades of experience in nutrition, such as the National Institute of Nutrition and the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, to generate the necessary evidence about different types of labelling.

Among the authors of the IIM-A study is a professor connected with an industry-backed ‘international’ consortium that works on ‘national policy options’ in food and land use. It is surprising that the Central Government, that is scanning foreign-funded NGOs for the fear of their meddling in India’s internal affairs, is turning a blind eye to a camouflaged attempt to influence policy and rulemaking in a critical area like food safety.

The regulator ignoring other evidence, such as the study done by the Mumbai-based International Institute for Population Sciences, is also intriguing.

India not only needs a food labelling that is effective but also a sustained campaign to promote nutrition and food literacy. The social media platforms are full of misinformation and fake news about foodstuff, as well as the promotion of unhealthy food to children and adults, through ‘native advertising’ in different types of content. The food safety authority, instead of working in tandem with the industry to boost junk food consumption, should work with consumer bodies and scientific institutions to enhance nutrition literacy.

In 2012, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health that investigated the functioning of India’s drug regulatory authority had observed that the regulatory authority’s priorities were skewed and it had been giving ‘primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drug industry’ while neglecting the interests of the biggest stakeholder — the consumer. Therefore, the panel wanted the mission statement of the regulatory authority to be changed to state in unambiguous terms that it is solely meant for public health.

The time has come to demand the same from the FSSAI. Its pro-industry tilt is too well known and is clear in the present case as well. It should make it clear why it wants to promote the front-of-pack food labelling — to protect the industry interest or the consumer’s health? 

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.