Abstract
BackgroundIn Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. Clear, unambiguous labelling of the nutritional content of pre-packaged foods and of standardized food items sold in chain restaurants is consistent with the prevailing philosophy of 'personal responsibility'. An interpretive, front-of-pack labelling scheme has the capacity to encourage healthier patterns of eating, and to be a catalyst for improvements in the nutritional quality of food products through re-formulation. On the other hand, the strength of opposition of the Australian Food and Grocery Council to 'Traffic Light Labelling', and its efforts to promote a non-interpretive, voluntary scheme, invite the interpretation that the food industry is resistant to any reforms that could destabilise current (unhealthy) purchasing patterns and the revenues they represent.DiscussionThis article argues that although policies that aim to educate consumers about the nutritional content of food are welcome, they are only one part of a broader basket of policies that are needed to make progress on obesity prevention and public health nutrition. However, to the extent that food labelling has the capacity to inform and empower consumers to make healthier choices - and to be a catalyst for improving the nutritional quality of commercial recipes - it has an important role to play. Furthermore, given the dietary impact of meals eaten in fast food and franchise restaurants, interpretive labelling requirements should not be restricted to pre-packaged foods.SummaryFood industry resistance to an interpretive food labelling scheme is an important test for government, and a case study of how self-interest prompts industry to promote weaker, voluntary schemes that pre-empt and undermine progressive public health regulation.
Highlights
In Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling
Summary: Food industry resistance to an interpretive food labelling scheme is an important test for government, and a case study of how self-interest prompts industry to promote weaker, voluntary schemes that pre-empt and undermine progressive public health regulation
The opposition of the food industry - acting through its peak lobby group, the Australian Food and Grocery Council to front-of-pack “Traffic Light Labelling” suggests that
Summary
In Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. The food industry and public health groups are locked in a serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. I examine the role of personal responsibility in public health regulation, and argue that strategies that depend upon motivating individuals to make healthier choices are likely to make only a modest contribution to obesity prevention. This does not mean, that improved food labelling has no role to play. Its inclusion in the policy package ought to be uncontroversial: ideally, no one should be offended by labelling that improves the capacity of consumers to make healthier choices! While both sides of the debate are keen to argue that their position is supported by research and evidence, I argue that food industry efforts to demonise Traffic Light Labelling and to promote its alternative, “Daily Intake Labelling”, are more about protecting industry revenues by heading off government regulation, than empowering consumers to improve their diets
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
