Testing times

With consumers demanding more information, the way our food is labelled looks set to change. But what does that mean for food testing laboratories? Mike Wong has some answers

In November 2004, the Department of Health issued a White Paper; Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier. This paper sets a range of aims and objectives in tackling ill health and reducing inequalities. A fundamental factor in improving the nation’s health is by making healthy eating choices and for this to happen, consumers must be able to make an informed choice. Small changes in the choices people make can make a big difference.

Many of the large food producers and suppliers already voluntarily provide nutritional information and where a nutrition claim is made, such as low fat or 95% fat free; nutritional labelling is mandatory in accordance with the EC Directive 90/496/EEC. Information in nutritional labelling falls into two categories; group 1 – the energy value and the amount of protein, carbohydrate and fat and group 2 – as in group 1 but with the additional information of sugar, saturated fatty acids, dietary fibre and sodium. Information on quantities of amidone, polyols, mono- and poly-unsaturated fatty acids, cholesterol, mineral salts and vitamins may also be included.

The Foods Standards Agency (FSA) recommends that group 2 labelling should be provided on all foods on a voluntary basis to ensure that consumers can make an informed choice. In order to make this kind of information more widely available, the European Commission is considering making nutritional labelling mandatory on all pre-packaged foods.

But what impact will this have on the food industry? The cost alone in implementing group 2 nutritional labelling will be a one-off value of £185 million plus an additional annual cost of £38 million. In an industry worth £70 billion per annum, this represents about a quarter of a percent. However, on a practical and realistic level, it has a massive impact on many of the smaller companies. In a recent study by Leatherhead Food International, undertaken for the FSA, a third of the companies surveyed currently provide full group 2 nutritional declaration. 28% of companies provided no nutritional information on their products at all with a strong bias towards smaller companies (those with less than 50 employees). The reasons for not providing nutrition labelling are mainly due to cost, lack of consumer demand and no perceived need. If group 2 labelling becomes mandatory, it could force these smaller businesses to close. Many of them simply do not have the resources to implement the changes - lack of understanding, chemical analysis cost, package redesign and printing are just some of the factors that these companies will have to face. The larger companies that already provide group 2 nutrition labelling mainly use chemical analysis, but also through calculation using published information.

In its current format, for the EC to implement mandatory group 2 labelling on all packaged foodstuff is neither practical nor probable. So what is the driving factor? The government is certainly enthusiastic on improving the way we live, wanting us to make an informed choice. And with the growing concern of obesity, nutritional information has never been so important.

The supermarkets have also been actively supportive of this by applying front of pack nutritional information on many of their packaging in a variety of formats. The traffic light system, monochrome and colour-coded Guideline Daily Amount (GDAs), suitable for vegetarians/diabetic icons, allergy advice, glycemic index value, fat free GM (genetically modified) free, reduced or no added sugar. The nutrition statements and claims are vast and all have their pros and cons. But are they there to allow us to make an informed choice or is it a strategic marketing ploy to make us spend more? Supermarkets would like consumers to think that they are doing it for social and ethical reasons. Processes in making food healthier may have a cost implication and this cost is passed onto the consumer plus the supermarket’s mark up. Fat-free, 95% lean, organic and free-range comes at a price. Similarly standard whole milk and skimmed milk cost the same price from the supermarket to us, the consumers, but undoubtedly supermarkets will pay less for skimmed milk as it’s the butterfat that’s the real value and it used to make the more luxurious foods.

When it comes to product health claims to increase sales, these can often be misleading and difficult to verify. A GM free product may not actually be completely free from genetically modified material as it’s difficult to get guarantees for GM free material down the supply line. Terms like “low fat” gives the impression that the food is healthy, but can actually be high in sugar. Even the term “organic” is misleading as it only refers to the lack of usage of direct pesticides and herbicides addition, but ignores those contained in water used for irrigation.

When it comes to consumers, what do we want to see on food labels? Do we actually want it on all foods we buy? There is a strong consensus that nutrition labelling should be mandatory, but as it stands, with supermarkets and food producers adopting different formats, it needs to be revised to provide consistent and clearer information. Fat, salt and sugar are the key components consumers want to see, along with beneficial elements such as fibre, protein and carbohydrates. Detailed information about the type of fat is also useful (saturates, unsaturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and trans fatty acids). There is also a great deal of criticism regarding blanket disclaimers for allergens. Many consumers think that ambiguous statements like “may contain” are unacceptable. Allergy sufferers are becoming increasingly angry with the proliferation of food labels which state “may contain traces of nuts” and would much prefer the removal of all ingredient listing exemptions to be replaced with more accurate and uniform labeling.

Complex ingredients may also restrict specific allergy sufferers because of lack of sufficiently precise labelling. People may be allergic to some but not all of the substances from which the complex ingredients may be derived. For example, potato, rice or wheat may be used to produce modified starch; soya, peanut, corn or egg may all be used to produce lecithin.

Conversely, consumers appreciate statements which declare the suitability of certain products (or unsuitability) for example “gluten free” and “suitable for diabetics”.

With much nutritional advice plastered on packaging and many variations for the same data, do we actually understand what it all means, do we want to know and are we becoming immune to understanding through information overload? There is always something about too much fat, too much salt, not enough fibre. Do we actually need a nutritional label to tell us that the triple layer double chocolate cake is bad for us? Yet, we as consumers want that information to be available to us. There will always be some people who would studiously look at food labels to make that all important informed choice and some people do not have a choice; if they have specific allergies or dietary requirements. All in all, there isn’t really too much information one can have, and you can always choose to ignore it. Practically, it’s not going to happen for some companies or products, especially handmade foods, or small companies, but with increased pressure on food producers to prove key composition, many larger companies are investing in better manufacturing processes and contract testing laboratories are experiencing an increase in business.

Consumer driven demand ensures that food producers need to provide this level of information, but also food producers motivate themselves through competing with each other for that healthier option. Nutritional claims need to be backed up and quality control plays a vital role in ensuring that they conform to the statements they make. Many food manufactures actually see food testing as a necessary evil and only do the bare minimum. Producers are finding it increasingly difficult to justify the costs of maintaining their own laboratory staff and equipment and with new legislation from the European Union regarding microbiological criteria for foodstuffs that specify minimum testing levels for specific pathogens, frequency of sampling and methodology, it is much easier and cheaper to contract out.

However, in-house testing also offers many advantages. Delays in microbiological results from contract labs, for foods that already have a short shelf life can have a detrimental effect. Sometimes the product is on the supermarket shelves before the results come back, with the manufacturing company undertaking a massive risk, not just in terms of sales, but also in consumer confidence if the product fails to meet the required standard and have to be recalled.

Increasingly, manufacturers are seeing the potential of at-line and on-line testing. On-line analysis makes use of detectors being placed within the actual flow of the food product within the processing area, whether in pipes, conveyors or mixing vessels. At-line analysis makes use of discrete equipment placed close to the process lines, where samples have to be taken off the line for analysis. Both techniques offer the same outcome, speeding up the time from analysis result to action.

In the food production environment, if a process cannot be changed quickly enough the whole batch has to be reworked or discarded, causing downtime and wastage. By making use of intelligent in-line analysers integrated into production, a continuous flow of accurate analysis data can be obtained, allowing production to be constantly controlled thus ensuring that final products adhere to desired specifications. Not only does this ensure customer confidence, it also allows manufactures to standardise closer to limits.

Many types of technologies exist for this type of at-line and on-line testing, for example, Near Infrared (NIR) and X-ray. Nowadays machines are available to analyse parameters such as protein, fat, moisture and salt for meat and dairy products. However, despite the growing number of food applications for NIR and X-ray technology, traditional wet chemistry still remains the basis for reference methods. Calibration (or standardisation) of NIR and X-ray require primary data and this is only generated through traditional chemical analysis.

There is a lot of information consumers would like to see on food labels, extensive nutritional specification, full ingredients listing, animal-derived products, allergens, production methods, suitability for certain groups, control of label claims… the list goes on. Obviously not all are practical on many levels, but food producers and supermarkets are trying, and are constantly looking for new ways to enhance processes which ensure consumer confidence and allow manufacturers to get away with what they can.

By Michael Wong. Michael has a Masters degree in chemistry and has been in the scientific instrumentation industry for over 6 years. He has recently moved to FOSS UK, where he has implemented a number of exciting marketing initiatives and has already become well established in the food and agricultural sector.