Nutrition labeling in supermarkets: Abnormalities in survey

Nutrition labeling in supermarkets: Abnormalities in survey

A month after the establishment of four nutrition labeling systems in supermarkets, the test is criticized by Inserm researchers. They claimed that the proportion of labeled products is well below the announced figures. The reason for initiating a new nutritional labeling system in supermarkets was to simplify reading the ingredients and helping consumers choose the best in the rack. Since 26 September, four nutrition labeling systems are experienced in France to facilitate the identification of the best foods for health. As a part of achieving this, a 10 week test run has been instigated in 40 supermarket chains in France including Casino, Carrefour Market and Simply Market. An assessment of the effectiveness of different types of nutritional labeling is strongly criticized by researchers from Inserm, after observing several “anomalies” in five stores.

Having visited several supermarkets participating in the evaluation of nutritional labeling, a research team from INSERM (National Institute of Health and Medical Research) published on October 21 a report “of anomalies “in the conduct of the test. According to Dr. Chantal Julia, a member of the research team, “only a little more than half of food-bread and fresh pastries caterers rays and a quarter of the radius grocery prepared dishes were labeled”. The announced figures were 76% for bread pastries radius, 76% for the fresh produce section and 63% for canned, she recalls. For its part, the journal Linear, after visiting two stores, evokes “disappointing” results and “disparities” of a supermarket to another.

Having heard of the publication of new criticism, the French Fund for Food and Health (FFAS, generously funded by industry sector organization that participates in the coordination of the evaluation), expressed its “indignation “about these” wild surveys conducted clandestinely in stores venue of experimentation “and calls for investigations” biased and partial.” The FFAS adds that the first independent audits, conducted October 20 in 35 stores, showed that “the conditions of progress of the experiment are satisfactory and acceptable in 26 stores in 7 shops. Only two stores did not reach the level and required corrective actions were taken immediately.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login