A paid 🔒 weekly emailer that explains fundamental shifts in business, technology and finance that happened over the last seven days in India. In a way you’ll never forget. Someone sent you this? Sign up here
Good Morning Dear Reader,
There’s a war going on in Ukraine. It’s been over a week since it started, but I still can’t believe it’s true. Fortunately, a majority of Indian students living there have been evacuated. However, around a thousand Indians are still thought to be marooned inside Ukraine’s borders. Hope. Pray. Strength.
Last week, I wrote about how the situation in Ukraine impacts India’s trade, particularly around sunflower oil.
I’m going to stick to the food theme this week too, because, just a couple of days ago, I saw this:
Consumers will soon be able to quickly spot how healthy, or unhealthy, and nutritious their food packet is. Packaged food items will soon bear a ‘health star’ as part of the new system under the directions from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The system will be akin to the one used by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency for measuring the energy efficiency of electrical appliances.
Packaged foods will display the number of stars, which will indicate how healthy or unhealthy the item is. The rating will be based on the amount of fats, sugar and salt present in the food item.
Packaged foods to soon have ‘health stars’ to inform buyers about nutrition profile, CNBC TV18
Yes. Soon, every packaged food item will have a label prominently displaying how healthy (or not) it is. Great idea. India is one of the largest markets for packaged food in the world. It also has one of the largest populations facing obesity, diabetes, and, on the other extreme end, malnourishment. And a big reason for that is because, until now, packaged food never had a clear health labeling system.
If you are a consumer, you should be happy this is finally happening.
But you know who’s happy about this latest development?
Food companies.
And the ones making all the unhealthy food are thrilled.
Many of them had been lobbying for this very system for years.
Let’s dive in.
Five star experience isn’t what you think it is
At the outset, I must point out that the definitive story about the battle between food companies and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for nutrition labeling has already been written a few months ago by my wonderful colleague, Maitri. She goes into detail about the history and the politics of the push-and-pull between FMCG giants and regulators, and who wants what and why.
However, back then, nobody had conclusively decided on the best way to affix warning labels for high fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) content in pre-packaged snacks. Until this week, when the five star system won.
I’ll get to the five star system shortly, but here’s the central problem, as framed by Maitri in her story.
This push and pull over the star ratings model is but a taste of the stalemate hounding FSSAI, the packaged food industry, and the consumer representatives on the issue of front of the pack labels (FOPL). Since 2014, the FSSAI has formed multiple committees to study the issue, but draft regulations ended up heavily edited or junked, study reports hijacked. One report never saw the light of day.
Despite the food fights, FSSAI released the draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations in 2018. But that too faced strong opposition from the industry. The 2018 draft required that food manufacturers add a red highlight on the front of the pack for food that had fat, sugar, and salt content over the recommended limit.
FSSAI officially notified draft regulations on labelling in November 2020, but FOPL regulations found no mention in it. The body decided to delink it from labelling and look at it, instead, through the public health lens. This led to the formation of a working group of experts and the aforementioned stakeholders’ committee.
Since January, FSSAI has had six meetings with stakeholders for a common consensus on which warning signs would be the best to deter an Indian consumer from consuming ‘junk food’. But in vain.
For instance, some members of the stakeholders’ committee strongly opposed the suggestions from a presentation given by the working group in a meeting on 22 April. The presentation, a copy of which The Ken accessed, suggested that thresholds for fat, sugar, and salt be arbitrarily raised so that at least 20% of all packed foods analysed by the working group can escape warning labels.
The packaged foods industry has been fighting tooth and nail to dilute these thresholds to avoid putting warning labels on their products. Consumer groups, on the other hand, in an attempt to simplify messaging, are calling for introducing strict, in-your-face warning logos. They rejected the Health Star Rating method outright, saying that it would send out confusing signals to a consumer. Caught in the snarling deadlock are customers fuelling India’s Rs 30,000 crore ($4 billion) ultra-processed food market.
How junk food giants took on a toothless FSSAI and won, The Ken
What’s the best way to warn a consumer on the front of the packaging that what they are eating is unhealthy for them?
Well, there are four contenders. All of them with their pros and cons.
First, there’s the traffic light system. Essentially, it’s a summary of the various food groups in that packet, and a colour corresponding to whether it’s good, bad, or right in the middle.
At first glance, this looks like a great system. And it mostly is a great system. But there are a couple of problems. The consumer should be able to understand and process the difference between food groups like sugar, fat, saturated fat, etc. This may work in Western markets, but in India, with divisions in terms of language, and even literacy, it may not.
The other problem is that this system does not distinguish between various “types” of food groups. An example I read points out that in this system, a 100 ml can of orange juice and 100 ml of a fizzy drink would both indicate high sugar levels, ignoring the possibility that orange juice also contains other nutrients like Vitamin C, which is missing in the fizzy drink.
Second, there’s the summary labels. Essentially, this is either a specific warning or a specific certification about the food that’s being consumed—good in this, bad in this. For the not-so-healthy stuff, it looks something like this.
And for the positive side, it looks like this. (You may have seen such badges on products that are certified as organic or otherwise).
But what if this label was dynamic? In essence, what if there was a standardised body that evaluated all packaged foods across various dimensions and told consumers if it was healthy to eat or not? This way, a bottle of orange juice may be high in sugar but still be classified as healthy, while a can of coke wouldn’t. Any product that met this requirement could display this label on their packet.
Well, congratulations, because that’s exactly what the Malaysian government did.
They introduced a red label, which looked like this.
Malaysia is a special country for several reasons. It’s often been referred to as the ‘fattest country in Asia’—nearly half of its adult population is overweight or obese.
And so several years ago, a bunch of local nutritionists and scientists decided to do something about it.
Except they weren’t alone.
The research, conducted by scientists from the Nutrition Society of Malaysia, which Dr. Tee heads, has produced several articles for peer-reviewed academic journals. But scientists weren’t the only ones vetting the material. One of the reviewers was Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, which financed the research.
Among the published articles was one that concluded that children who drank malted breakfast beverages—a category dominated in Malaysia by Milo, a sugary powder drink made by Nestlé—were more likely to be physically active and spend less time in front of a computer or television.
The research exemplified a practice that began in the West and has moved, along with rising obesity rates, to developing countries: deep financial partnerships between the world’s largest food companies and nutrition scientists, policymakers and academic societies.
In Asia’s Fattest Country, Nutritionists Take Money From Food Giants, The New York Times
I guess it’s time to talk about Milo.
You probably know about it. Many of you may even have had it as kids. If you have kids of your own, they may be drinking it regularly too.
Milo positions and markets itself as a healthy food for active children. There’s almost always a kid on the packet, engaged in some activity—maybe basketball, or cricket, or, if you are in Malaysia, taekwondo. Taekwondo is very popular in Malaysia.
A few years ago, some people in Malaysia started looking at Milo a little more closely. One of them was a Malaysian named Vishen Lakhiani, founder and CEO of a company called Mindvalley. And what he found astonished him. He posted a video about it which went viral in Malaysia.
Lakhiani’s video was about how, if you looked at the ingredients, around 40% of Milo was… sugar.
And guess what was present on some packages of Milo?
Of course, this raised several questions. Exactly how neutral was this body that issued these food packaging labels? Could it be neutral?
Which, finally, brings me to star ratings.
The idea of star ratings is simple. Every product gets a rating on a five point scale, which is prominently displayed on the front of the package. The healthier the product, the higher the star rating.
India isn’t the first country to introduce the star rating system. Many others have done it before; most prominently, Australia. The idea of a star rating system is that it’s truly objective. You input the ingredients, and the system spits out a rating. No room for subjectivity or mischief.
So, can you guess how many stars Milo got in Australia?
See for yourself.
If you are wondering how a product that has 40% sugar managed to get a 4.5 star rating under an objective system of measuring food health, well, the answer is brilliant.
Nestle had found a clever loophole.
Milo, a chocolate and malt-based powder that is just under half sugar, has been held up as a symbol of everything wrong with the 3.5-year-old health star rating system.
Following the system’s “as prepared” rule, Nestle calculated 4.5 stars based on the assumption that Australians added three teaspoons of the mix to 200ml of skim milk.
The problem was, according to health and consumer advocates, people consumed it in a variety of ways, including mixing it with full cream milk, eating it straight out of the can, or sprinkling it on ice cream.
Nestle was accused of manipulating the system and “health washing” the sugary product. On its own, Milo scored a paltry 1.5 stars.
Choice, which bestowed a Shonky award on Milo, said while the decision was a win for consumers, it believed Nestle could go one step further and display 1.5 stars.
“When people see a chocolate-based powdered product that is high in sugar carrying a 4.5-star rating, they rightfully question health star ratings,” Choice’s Katinka Day said.
“There’s the risk that consumers will turn away from a system that food manufacturers manipulate to their advantage.”
That’s not the only problem with the health star rating system. It is also compensatory—meaning you can add a ton of bad ingredients and score a high score by adding some relatively “good” ingredients.
“You cannot just add the good ingredients in the bad and convert it into a good product. It continues to remain bad.
If a chocolate [bar] with dry fruits has received, say, three out of five stars, what does that tell me as a consumer?
Nothing that warns me about its high sugar or fat content”
Ashim Sanyal, chief operating officer (COO) of Voluntary Organisation in Interest of Consumer Education, or VOICE
This is why food companies love the star system.
Because it works for them.
Take care.
Regards,
Praveen Gopal Krishnan
https://sg-mktg.com/MTY0NjQ1MzExNHwwekVWRnlEWm9PVUFnODFTbjdXbXhjd245Sy0xSjhGRW1QRVlQZVV2WmF2cXRvUXZkM3Z1aGFMMU1Vd21JdnYySHd0NmRzR0h1UDd5cWV4UEdBV2dwd1E5aEdLRUZ1WnhfYkx4SldkeUdiQ19XTHZRVWsxaEg0X1FlOVRKdUJnSEVKZWVHSkNOYmlEd094UUFrRzg2YXNHdjdHZWVYRXdDa1AzeG11b2hlYzhGSWhXeEoxWnB2VG9KV012SS1NM2JMbDlkODU1Z0RELTdoNWFDQlRpMWJNTTA3WTJJMVlJWFljTzBvX3RsczJzWGdwLS14WGJoX0Zlcm42aVpSM0QyQmc9PXzg-Wy28ptqh6gTMxAqNxHpQ_8dGpyDg_ffWOtpDJZuyA==
The Nutgraf is a paid weekly emailer that explains fundamental shifts in business, technology and finance that happened over the last seven days in India. In a way you’ll never forget.
Know someone who would like The Nutgraf?
Want to receive The Nutgraf every week?
The Nutgraf is published by The Ken—a digital, subscription-driven publication focussing on technology, business, science and healthcare.
Want to unsubscribe from our weekly newsletter, The Nutgraf? Click here. Or set your email preferences here
© 2021 The Ken
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘218269277186634’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
