logo
#

Latest news with #nutritionalexperts

The warning labels that could be coming for your crisps
The warning labels that could be coming for your crisps

News24

time01-08-2025

  • Health
  • News24

The warning labels that could be coming for your crisps

It can be difficult to understand what the nutritional information on packaged food is trying to tell us, and complicated measurements and unfamiliar terms don't make it any easier. But if the food labelling regulations currently being reviewed by the health department are enacted, big, bold warning signs on the front of food packaging will let shoppers immediately identify foods high in sugar, salt or unhealthy fats, or if they contain any amount of artificial sweeteners. Nutritional experts hope the warnings will help people make healthier food choices at the grocery store and begin to make connections between unhealthy food, obesity and chronic disease. 'It's sort of hidden.' That's how 30-year-old Elvina Moodley describes the nutritional labels on the back of packaged food products stacked on grocery store shelves. 'When you're there, you're already in a rush and don't have the time to look at the small print on the back to see how much sugar or salt is in an item.' Moodley, like many South Africans, says she's never really understood how nutritional tables - the per serving amounts of calories, glycaemic carbohydrates (carbohydrates the body digests and uses for energy), protein, fat and sodium (salt) - translate into what is a healthy, or unhealthy, food. But big, bold triangle warning labels on the front of packages could mean making healthy choices will be a lot easier. South Africa's draft food labelling regulation, which is under review at the health department, would require packaged foods high in sugar, salt, saturated fat (often from animal fat or plant oils), or any amount of artificial sweetener to carry warnings for consumers. It would work, says Edzani Mphaphuli, executive director of the childhood nutrition non-profit Grow Great, in a similar way to warnings on cigarette packs. 'You might not know why smoking causes cancer, but when you see the label, you start to think: 'Okay, this might not be good for me,'' she says. 'But [many people] don't know that growing evidence links high added sugar consumption to cancer risk. We just think about it as, 'I'm big,' and it ends there. There isn't a clear link that is made around that and hypertension (high blood pressure) and diabetes, and all of the other chronic diseases.' Why labels are hard to read Many familiar foods - from noodles and breakfast cereals to baby food - are considered ultraprocessed. It's because of how they are made, using ingredients you wouldn't normally find in a kitchen, such as artificial colours or preservatives. Often these foods are filled with sugar, fat, starch and salt. Those ingredients give people energy in the form of calories but fewer healthy nutrients like proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals. Eating too many of these types of foods can raise the chances of obesity, which can lead to diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Currently, food labels in South Africa are required to list all product ingredients, including those that people could be allergic to, where the product comes from and its best before or use by date. But unless manufacturers make claims like 'low in sugar', they don't have to include detailed per serving nutrient information. Even when it does appear, it's often in small writing and uses terms and measurements that an ordinary shopper would not understand, says Makoma Bopape, a nutrition researcher and lecturer at the University of Limpopo. 'It tells you how much of certain nutrients you get in, say, 100ml or in a serving size. But if you don't have a nutritional science [background] it's hard to know what that means.' That's why some countries have started to use simple front-of-pack labels. Since 2013, the United Kingdom (UK) has used a 'traffic light' system with red, yellow and green markers to show whether a product is high, medium or low in sugar, salt and fat. While it is mandatory for manufacturers to include nutritional information on the back of their products, they can opt to use the 'traffic light' on the front of food packages - and most do. These labels help shoppers compare products, but they can also confuse them. A UK government report found that the colours can overwhelm shoppers with too much information. A Chile warning Not all front-of-pack labels are equal. Research shows that clear warning signs that simply say the food is 'high in' sugar, salt or saturated fats are easier for people to understand than traffic lights - and work better at helping them spot unhealthy products. Chile was the first country to introduce warning labels in 2016. A bold, black and white octagon - like a stop sign - appears on the packaging of foods high in calories, salt, sugar or saturated fats. The result? After the regulations were enacted, Chileans bought fewer of these products and manufacturers put fewer unhealthy ingredients in cereals, dairy and sugary drinks. But in some cases, sugar was replaced with nonnutritive sweeteners (such as sucralose and stevia), which don't lower the risk of obesity in the long run. In 2021, Chilean researchers compared the ingredients of 999 products sold before and eight months after the law was introduced. They found that about a third of products that had less sugar to avoid a warning sign did so by switching to nonnutritive sweeteners. Yet obesity rates continued to rise from an estimated 33.2% of adults with obesity in 2016 to 38.9% in 2022. The NCD Alliance, a global network which advocates for policies on noncommunicable diseases, says that while Chile's warning labels are an important way to help people make healthier choices, poverty and lack of access to healthy food make a healthy diet difficult to maintain. In France, manufacturers use what's called Nutri-Score, a grading system which ranges from a green A to red E. The score adds points for nutrients like fibre and protein and subtracts points for unhealthy ones. So, a high sugar and low fibre cereal would carry an orange D, but a low sugar and high fibre one would have a green A. South Africa would use a similar system to Chile, but the label will come in the shape of a triangle. Studies found the triangle, like those used in road signs to signal danger, is the easiest for South African shoppers to relate to. The warnings will cover between 10% and 25% of the front of the package, will be black on a white background and will be located in the top right corner. They will have the words 'high in' and 'warning' in bold, uppercase letters, next to an exclamation mark and an icon to represent the nutrient. This will help make the warning easier for people who can't read or don't speak English to understand. Because each nutrient will have its own warning symbol, if a product is high in more than one nutrient - or has any artificial sweeteners at all - a single package could carry up to four warning icons. 'They just want to fill their tummies' Still, what people - and their children - eat isn't always up to them, says Mphaphuli. 'Some parents can only afford cheap food that fills up the family the quickest, which limits their choice in what they consume.' In 2021, around 3.7 million (20.6%) of South Africa's 17.9 million households said they didn't have enough food for a healthy diet. Over half a million families with children younger than five reported going hungry. Most of these households are located outside of the metropolitan areas, where healthy, nutrient-rich foods - like fruits, vegetables and nuts, which are high in protein, vitamins, minerals and fibre - are both expensive and harder to come by, says Mphaphuli. 'If in your spaza shop one apple costs the same as a bottle of highly concentrated juice that can be shared across days, you're going to go for the cheaper thing.' When people don't have enough types of food to choose from, they buy what lasts long - even if it isn't healthy. Many homes survive on processed cereals, condiments, oils, sugar and fats. 'People say: 'At the beginning of the month, when I still have money, I get worried and I pay attention to what I buy. But as the month goes by, I just buy whatever I can afford,'' explains Bopape. 'They just want to fill their tummies.' Clear labelling alone won't be enough to reduce unhealthy eating, says Bopape. Warning signs need to go hand-in-hand with other policies, such as sugar taxes, restrictions on advertising and the selling of unhealthy foods in and around schools. Moodley wishes healthy foods were more reasonably priced. But the warning labels will at least 'help us know what we're getting ourselves into.'

Nutritionists reveal how plant milk stacks up against dairy
Nutritionists reveal how plant milk stacks up against dairy

The Independent

time16-07-2025

  • Health
  • The Independent

Nutritionists reveal how plant milk stacks up against dairy

UK Government nutritional experts have concluded that no plant-based milk available in the UK is 'nutritionally equivalent' to cow's milk. Concerns have been raised regarding the nutritional value of plant-based drinks for children aged one to five, especially those on a vegan diet, due to potential inadequate micronutrient intake. The report highlights a potential toxicological concern for young children on a vegan diet who consume high amounts of soya, linked to naturally occurring isoflavones. Experts noted that plant-based drinks can contribute to higher intakes of added sugar across all age groups. Nutritional concerns may be lessened if consumers opt for unsweetened plant-based drinks fortified with essential vitamins and minerals. Children under five at risk from only consuming plant milk, say experts

Children under five at risk from only consuming plant milk, say experts
Children under five at risk from only consuming plant milk, say experts

The Independent

time16-07-2025

  • Health
  • The Independent

Children under five at risk from only consuming plant milk, say experts

No plant-based milk available in the UK is 'nutritionally equivalent' to cows' milk, a team of UK experts has concluded. Plant-based milk drinks – including soya, oat and almond milk – have soared in popularity in recent years. Now nutritional experts advising the UK Government have published a report on the benefits and risks of milk substitutes, with some concerns raised about the use of the products among children under the age of five. In children aged one to five there is a risk that only consuming plant-based drinks can lead to 'inadequate intakes of some micronutrients', according to experts on the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (Cot). And people of any age group who have these drinks could have a higher intake of added sugar. But the report stresses that nutritional concerns may be 'lessened' if people opt for unsweetened soya, oat and almond milk drinks and if these drinks are fortified with vitamin A, riboflavin, vitamin B12, calcium and iodine at similar levels to those in cows' milk, and also with vitamin D. And they said that typical almond, oat and soya drinks may contribute to lower intakes of calories and saturated fat, with higher intake of fibre and vitamin D, which would be beneficial to most. But the new report highlights a 'potential toxicological concern' with milk substitutes in children up to the age of five who follow a vegan diet and consume a lot of soya. The expert group said that these children may be more likely to consume high amounts of a naturally occurring compound called isoflavones. But the risk could be partially mitigated by ensuring children following a vegan diet get their protein from a variety of sources and not just soya. SACN and Cot made a series of nutrition recommendations for children under the age of five, older children and adults who drink milk substitutes, including: It is 'preferable' that children aged one to five consume whole or semi-skimmed cows' milk over plant-based drinks, if they consume animal products, but unsweetened and fortified plant-based milks are an 'acceptable alternative'. Unfortified or sweetened plant-based drinks are 'not an acceptable alternative to cows' milk'. SACN and Cot also said that 'there is no need for drinks specifically marketed for children aged one to three years, including plant-based follow-on formula, 'growing up' and other 'toddler' drinks'. Vegan children aged one to five should consume fortified and unsweetened plant-based milks over water, where other children would drink cows' milk. Soya milk is preferable as the main substitute for cows' milk for vegan children aged one to five, because it has higher amounts of protein compared to almond or oat milks. But the experts stressed vegan children should be offered a wide variety in protein in their general food and drink consumption, to avoid high intakes of isoflavones linked to soya. For children aged five and over and adults, fortified and unsweetened almond, oat and soya drinks are an acceptable alternative to cows' milk. They conclude: 'No almond, oat or soya drink available in the UK is nutritionally equivalent to cows' milk. 'The most appropriate alternative to cows' milk varies by age group and people's wider dietary intakes and health concerns.' They add: 'There are potential nutritional and toxicological concerns related to plant-based drinks, and these particularly apply to children aged one to five years, especially those who are following a vegan diet. 'There are potential nutritional concerns related to higher intakes of free sugars and inadequate intakes of certain micronutrients (for all three plant-based drinks) and lower intakes of protein (for almond and oat drinks).'

Why 100% fruit juice should come with a sugar warning label
Why 100% fruit juice should come with a sugar warning label

News24

time23-06-2025

  • Health
  • News24

Why 100% fruit juice should come with a sugar warning label

Under South Africa's latest proposed food labelling regulations 100% fruit juices won't have to show a high sugar warning because their sugars are 'naturally occurring' — researchers who gave input on the rules say that's a mistake. Juices can pack as much, or more, sugar than some sodas or energy drinks and nutritional experts say, when people consume too much of them, there isn't really a healthier option between these sugary drinks. Over one in ten children in South Africa under five are already overweight, and researchers have found that drinking just one sugar-sweetened beverage (e.g. sodas or fruit juice with artificially added sugar) a day raises the chances of a child being overweight by more than half. We compared different fruit juices, energy drinks, sodas and flavoured waters to work out which drinks have the most sugar and which will — or won't — need a warning label. Apples, oranges and grapes are healthy fruits. But when they are turned into juice they pack as much, or more, sugar than some sodas or energy drinks. Under South Africa's proposed food labelling regulations 100% fruit juices won't be required to show a high sugar warning on their packaging because their sugars are 'naturally occurring'. But because of their sugar content, nutritional experts say, when people consume too much of them, there isn't really a healthier option between soda, flavoured water or energy drinks. 'Coke has too much sugar, but fruit juices also have too much natural sugar,' says Edzani Mphaphuli, executive director of Grow Great, a non-profit which works to shape childhood nutrition policies. Sugar is helping drive South Africa's obesity rise. Over one in ten children under five are already overweight, and researchers have found that drinking just one sugar-sweetened beverage a day raises the chances of a child being overweight by more than half. That's part of what our proposed food labelling regulations are meant to combat. READ | Sweet saboteurs: How to spot hidden sugars in these everyday snacks and cut your intake Under the current draft — which the health department is still reviewing, according to spokesperson Foster Mohale — fruit juices will fall through a definition loophole. But that's not what researchers who gave input on the rules recommended, or what many public health experts advise. 'Our evaluation used the criteria of 'free sugars', where all 100% fruit juices would have carried a warning label,' says Tamryn Frank, a researcher at the University of the Western Cape and who was part of the technical team. 'That highlights the importance of reconsidering the best term to include when the final regulation is published.' The World Health Organisation (WHO) says 'free sugars' are sugars added to products like sodas and energy drinks, as well as those naturally found in fruits. But our current draft proposal says only products with 'added sugar' will be required to carry a label. Supplied/Bhekisisa The draft regulations say any drink with more than 5g of sugar (just over one teaspoon) per 100ml, or any amount of artificial sweetener (such as the calorie-free chemicals aspartame or sucralose) must show a black and white triangle with the word 'warning' in bold capital letters. If passed in their current form, researchers say almost six in ten of all sodas, energy drinks and juices sold at supermarkets in the country would carry a warning label. But while 94% of soft drinks and 97% of energy drinks would need warning labels for high sugar or artificial sweeteners, just 30% of juices would be labelled. Pure 100% fruit juices won't carry a warning label because their sugar is natural. But not all juices are completely natural, some contain added sugar or sweeteners — so those with more than just over a teaspoon of sugar per 100ml will still need to carry a 'high in sugar' warning. We did the sums to work out which drinks have the most sugar and which will — or won't — need a warning label, according to the current version of the regulations. Fruit juices While they didn't have any artificial sweeteners, all of the juices we compared — Fruugo sparkling apple juice, Ceres orange and Rhodes grape juice — had more sugar than all of the other drinks we compared except for Coke. 'Because they come straight from nature, people think they must be healthy. But it's not exactly the same thing as eating a single fruit,' explains Mphaphuli. 'Juice is highly concentrated and you need to dilute it with water if you're going to give it to a child [to reduce the sugar content].' Supplied/Bhekisisa Whole fruits are filled with fibre, which slows digestion and helps control blood sugar. But that fibre is shed when fruit is turned into juice. Without it, sugar reaches the bloodstream faster, which can cause spikes and drops in energy. Research has shown that swapping a fruit juice for some types of whole fruit three times a week can lower a person's chances of getting type 2 diabetes — likely because juice raises blood sugar faster and has less fibre. A study published in the South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition earlier this year found that almost three-quarters of fruit juices have more sugar than the proposed limit. But, as regulations stand now, only 17% would require a warning label because most of the sugar is natural, not added (because the regulations only look at the total amount of sugar in products with added sugar and not those with natural sugars). Soda Among the three sodas, Coke has the most sugar — and is the only one that contains caffeine, a stimulant, which means it speeds up the messages travelling between the brain and the body, and can therefore make you sleep less well. Too much caffeine can lead to anxiety, restlessness and affect the way your heart beats. The WHO says an adult should not consume more than six to 12 teaspoons of sugar per day. A can of original taste 440ml of Coke contains 2.65 teaspoons of sugar per 100ml, which means an entire can contains about 11.5 teaspoons of sugar — more than the maximum WHO daily limit. Sodas are some of the sweetest drinks you can buy and, research shows, South Africans love them: we drink an average of 254 Coca-Cola products per person per year, almost triple the global average of 89. Before South Africa's tax on sugar beverages was introduced in 2018, which requires manufacturers to pay 2.1 cents tax for every gram of sugar that exceeds 4 grams of sugar per 100ml, the average 330ml can of soda had about 10 teaspoons of sugar. But to avoid the tax — some producers changed ingredients in their drinks. For example, says Frank, Sprite and Fanta drinks lowered the sugar content but added non-nutritive sweeteners to keep the sweetness. Supplied/Bhekisisa While chemical sweeteners, which are often used in 'diet' drinks, can help people with short-term weight loss, the WHO says they should 'not be used as a means of achieving weight control or reducing the risk of noncommunicable diseases' like obesity in the long-run. Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has listed aspartame, a sweetener found in diet drinks such as Fanta Zero, as a possible cause of cancer, though more research is needed. The new regulations will require sugary drinks containing artificial sweeteners to carry the following warning on the front of the container: 'This product contains artificial sweeteners. Excessive consumption may be detrimental to your health.' Manufacturers will also not be allowed to market such products to children. 'None of these products are recommended as part of a healthy diet because they don't contain any nutrients other than sugar and energy,' says Makoma Bopape, a nutrition researcher and lecturer at the University of Limpopo. Bopape was part of the technical group who worked on the labels. 'What makes it worse is the fact that some contain sweeteners.' Energy drinks Monster has nearly four times more sugar than both Dragon and Power Play and all contain artificial sweeteners. A 500ml can of Monster has around 13 teaspoons of sugar — more than the maximum sugar intake the WHO recommends for adults per day. Energy drinks aren't just packed with sugar, like many sodas, they also contain caffeine. Experts say teens who weigh between 40 and 70kg shouldn't consume more than 100 — 175mg of caffeine a day. At an average of about 150mg, all three energy drinks contain almost the maximum amount of caffeine per can per day that experts recommend. Under the proposed regulations, these three drinks would all need a warning label — either for high sugar or containing artificial sweeteners. Flavoured water Of the three flavoured waters we looked at, Bonaqua Pump Lemon is the only one that does not contain any artificial sweeteners. Even though they're often marketed as 'healthier' options, the flavoured waters we looked at had similar amounts of sugar and sweeteners as sodas. One option had both sugar and three sweeteners — making it more soda than water. aQuelle naartjie and Thirsti berry use artificial sweeteners to keep the sugar low, but they respectively also contain nearly two and four full teaspoons of sugar in a 500ml bottle. Bopape says plain water — not flavoured water — should be the preferred drink of choice. Show Comments ()

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store