Health ratings the soft approach
the addition would cost millions of dollars but members were committed to assisting consumers to better understand what’s in their food.
Let’s face it, we don’t need symbols or expensive campaigns to tell us that soft drinks and juices are high in sugar and bad for us.
We know it already, and it doesn’t seem to stop us from slurping the stuff in large quantity, or allowing our children to do the same.
It is not beyond reason that the makers of these drinks are using the star rating as a device to placate health agencies, showing they are taking action, and temper the threat of legislation.
There is no question sugary drinks are now firmly in the firing line. All 20 of the country’s district health boards have now agreed to scrap the sale of sugar-sweetened soft drinks, with some health lobbyists calling for a sugar tax or other measures to discourage the public from buying them.
Regretfully, affecting cost and availability are more meaningful ways to change dietary habits.
While the industry has said it would ‘‘look at ways of reducing sugar in its products’’, and consider smaller portion sizes, it’s unlikely to put the health of the nation before the appeal and profit margins of its product – unless forced to.
Such nanny state regulations are not something to cheer. Consumers should have as much free choice as possible, and they must carry responsibly for the choices they make.
But there are also ways in which these drinks can be marketed and priced more responsibly, particularly towards children and young people.
While there are smaller portion sizes now available, they are often priced so similar to the larger portions that they suggest diminished value. Then there are the high-sugar energy drinks. What they lack in size, they make up for in aggressive marketing and packaging aimed at young people.
The one encouraging sign of the new rating label is that redundant health warnings were the first measure to combat cigarettes – a campaign that went from strength to strength.