Cigarette-style warnings mooted for ‘treat’ food
‘‘The image of the fatty distended heart on a chocolate label would be misleading and false.’’
Brief exposure to graphic food product health warnings may enhance dietary self-control. That’s what University of Melbourne scientist Stefan Bode has theorised in a new study, which looks at the effectiveness of graphic warnings (similar to those you’d find on cigarettes) on unhealthy or ‘‘treat’’ food such as chips, chocolate bars, and biscuits, and healthy food like fruits and vegetables.
In showing graphic warnings (such as pictures of unhealthy hearts) with accompanying text, the researchers discovered that the brain activity of people looking at the products was more likely to indicate that they would exercise self-control and make the healthier food choices.
The New Zealand Dental Association (NZDA) also supports cigarette-style graphic warnings. Researchers recently used a model that saw a 20 per cent drop in purchases of drinks bearing a picture of rotten teeth.
Sarah Hanrahan, dietitian and chief executive of the New Zealand Nutrition Foundation, has mixed views on the idea of implementing graphic messaging on supermarket food.
‘‘Food is a lot different from cigarettes,’’ she says. ‘‘There’s a way to enjoy treat food without it being harmful, as long as they really are an occasional treat.’’
Bode’s research, he admits, is done in a laboratory setting rather than real life and he says ‘‘there is no recommendation attached to our findings – we just report what we have found to have an effect in our study’’.
Putting graphic health warnings on unhealthy foods would be antiquated, Hanrahan believes. ‘‘It’s a draconian view because people who are buying these foods know what they’re buying. They struggle not to make good choices, but because they’re on tight budgets.’’
The New Zealand Food and
Grocery Council doubts the Melbourne study too. Chief executive Katherine Rich says, ‘‘It’s a silly idea for food labelling and is based on no evidence whatsoever. The image of the fatty distended heart on a chocolate label would also be misleading and false.
‘‘Enjoying chocolate or other treats in moderation does not cause heart disease or any other grizzly images public health campaigners might want on a food label.’’
The New Zealand Nutrition Foundation backs the Health Star Ratings and sees this type of system on food in New Zealand as more supportive of positive food choices. ‘‘As described, this kind of thing isn’t going to work on a pack of jelly lollies. You know they’re bad if you’re eating them,’’ Hanrahan says. ‘‘But where it’s helpful is on items like muesli and breakfast cereals. Foods people just aren’t sure about.’’ Positive messaging on foods like fruit and vegetables are also a better way to go, she adds. ‘‘It’s more beneficial on healthy food than unhealthy food,’’ she explains, noting that consumers are encouraging by positive messages – a picture of a fit person with a message such as ‘‘staying a healthy weight reduces your risk of heart disease’’, an example used in the University of Melbourne study. ‘‘That’s how we make better choices.’’
Other research, published in Appetite journal in January, argues that warning messages on junk food – such as burgers, fries, and pizza – is irrelevant, because of the external stimuli in the place of purchase. This can include logos, packaging, even smells.
For example, eating a cheeseburger regularly occurs in the presence of a large ‘‘M’’ logo and a trademark smell of warm, fatty comfort. ‘‘Unhealthy choices are therefore automatically activated by learned associations, making health warnings, which focus on conscious choices, ineffective,’’ said researcher Aukje Verhoeven.
Finding somebody to take responsibility for warning labels in any kind of marketing is perhaps most problematic of all, said University of Auckland researchers Stefanie Vandevijvere and Alanna Soupen.
New Zealand’s Government refuses to put restrictions in place when it comes to food warnings, they say, so decisions are left to the food industry, whose bottom line is profit, not public health.
As such, this means any kind of graphic messaging on food products in New Zealand would be voluntary.
It’s hard to believe that a manufacturer of any kind of unhealthy food would consider incurring the extra costs of altering their packaging, for the purpose of potentially decreasing sales, unless forced to by regulators.