campaign updateParent power urges retailersto curb pester power<strong>The</strong> Parents Jury campaign ChuckSnacks off the Checkout! was launchedin 2003 to highlight how retail displaysaffect what people buy and eat.Parents report that snacks bought onimpulse at the checkout add extra calories toa shopping basket, and can also causeconflict when children pester for productstheir parents would rather they did not eat.<strong>The</strong> campaign has rapidly gainedmomentum, and is now supported by 12 publichealth organisations, including the BritishDental Hygienists Association and theNational Oral Health Promotion Group.Parents have submitted statements ofconcern about fatty, sugary and salty snacksdisplayed at supermarket checkouts – see ourwebsite for examples.A sample of 100 of these statements hasbeen sent to supermarket bosses, tochallenge them to say what they intend to do.Over 100 checkout surveys have also beencarried out by supporters up and down thecountry. <strong>The</strong> findings show that ASDA has themost displays of unhealthy foods at checkouts,with an average 1.4 displays ofproducts per checkout. So despite itsplans to display fruit at some of itscheckouts (see page 1), ASDA still hasa very long way to go!Safeway was also found to haveconfectionary displays at 88% of itscheckouts, mostly within children’sreach. Let’s hope Safeway takesaction to remove these unhealthytemptations, especially in light of itsown survey, published in January,that announced: ‘Pester power is rife!59% of parents are pestered for treatswhen out shopping with their childrenwith chocolate and sweets gettingthe most requests (63%).’<strong>The</strong> surveys also revealed thatconfectionery at the checkout iscommon in unexpected places, suchas in pharmacies and in Mothercare.Boots was also highlighted by surveyors, withan average of 1.2 displays of products per till.Waitrose has retained its title as ‘top of theleague’. Surveyors found only one store inKate Millington, nutritionist and volunteer for theChuck Snacks off the Checkout campaign, prepares tosend statements from parents to major supermarketswhich confectionery was displayed at the endof the aisle near the tills. But in general,Waitrose continues to live up to its statedpolicy of protecting parents from pester power.BBC sheds the pounds…and then puts them on again!Research shows that the morepeople watch television, the fatterthey are. This is likely to bebecause people who watch a lotof television do not moveabout much.<strong>The</strong>y may alsoeat a lot ofcalorificsnacks, bemore likely toorder take-awayfood, and may seeand respond tomore adverts for high-fat andhigh-sugar foods.<strong>The</strong> BBC acknowledgedthese relationships in an adcampaign for this year’sChildren in Need appeal. Aroadside billboard (above,right) says ‘Shed a fewpounds watching telly’.<strong>The</strong> campaign wentfurther than a jokeyreference to sedentarybehaviour. As withfund-raising for other good causes,BBC’s Children in Need has moved intolicensing deals with food companies,such as Fox’s, whose Pudsey Bearchocolate-covered biscuits nowcarry the Children in Need logo.Studies show that overweightchildren are more likely to bebullied, to have symptoms ofdepression and to have suicidalthoughts. Surely Children inNeed does not have to attachits logos to fattening foods thatwill only add to these children’sSupporters of the ChuckSnacks campaign <strong>The</strong> Allergy Alliance Healthy Eating on a Low Income Forum Bolton Primary Care Trust British Dental Hygienists Association British Association for the Study ofCommunity Dentistry Camden Primary Care Trust Consensus Action on Salt and Health Health Education Trust Hyperactive Children’s Support Group National Oral Health Promotion Group Obesity Awareness and Solutions Trust UK Public Health Association■ If your organisation would like to supportthe campaign, contact us at the addressbelow and we can send more information.Tell retailers what you think<strong>The</strong> more people who support thecampaign, the more likely we are topersuade supermarkets to change theirpolicies! Forms for submitting statements ofconcern are at: www.parentsjury.org.ukor write to: Chuck Snacks off the Checkout,c/o <strong>The</strong> <strong>Food</strong> <strong>Commission</strong>, 94 White LionStreet, London N1 9PF.<strong>Food</strong> Magazine 64 8 Jan/Mar 2004
claimsDubious science –but who cares?In autumn 2003, Nestlé produced cereal boxesfor its Cheerios and Shreddies brands with anunusual format. Prominent panels featured thefindings of a research study on differentbreakfasts and their effect on children’sattention span later in the morning.<strong>The</strong> packs even showed a graph indicatingthe superiority of Cheerios and Shreddiescereals over other types of breakfast.This was an unusual place to publishacademic research findings, so we followedthe website link to theoriginal research paper.<strong>The</strong> authors were KeithWesnes and colleague, ofa company calledCognitive DrugResearch, plus DavidRichardson, an ex-Nestlé senior advisor,along with Gareth Helm,a Nestlé employee, andone Simon Hails from aprivate food laboratory,Reading ScientificServices.<strong>The</strong> paper was published in ajournal called Appetite (41: 329-331,2003) – which presumably is not peerreviewed as the paper wasapparently accepted for publicationwithin 48 hours of submission. Had thepaper been properly peer reviewed itsurely would have been rejected.<strong>The</strong> four breakfasts examined in the trialwere (a) a bowl of Cheerios and milk, (b) abowl of Shreddies and milk, (c) a glass ofglucose drink with a similar amount ofcarbohydrate, and (d) no breakfast.<strong>The</strong> Cheerios and Shreddies eatersshowed better attention performance aftersome three hours compared with the glucosedrinkers and the no-breakfast children. Fine,except how do we know it was the cereal thatdelivered the results? Any rigorous studywould ask more questions.Could it have been the milk – which onlythose eating cereals received?Could it have been the protein or the fat inthe cereal and milk breakfasts, rather thancomplex carbohydrates which the authors andthe company claim?Or could it simply have been the additionalenergy provided in the cereal-plus-milkbreakfast? We estimate the cereal eatersreceived between 170 and 220 kcal,compared with the 145 kcal in the glucosedrink and nothing for the last group. <strong>The</strong>differences between groups were notapparent after two hours, but only emergedby the third.We will never know.By the time we had drafted a complaint,Nestlé had changed its cereal box designsagain.And even if, as a result of our complaint,Nestlé had got a ticking off for makingunsubstantiated claims, would it care? Afterall, the message had already appeared onseveral million breakfast tables.Cereal breakfasts may be good forchildren, but poorly executed research willMilky Way pretends to be healthyThis Milky Way chocolate spread claims thatit is ‘rich in calcium, magnesium and vitamins’,making it sound as if the product could make avaluable contribution to our diet.But can adding minerals andvitamins magically transform afatty, sugary food into ahealthy food? This is more thana philosophical question.<strong>The</strong> debate lies at the heartof European negotiationsregarding new rules for thefortification of foods and<strong>drinks</strong>.Fortification is theaddition of vitamins,minerals and otherbeneficial substances forthe purpose of improvingnutrition. Under UK rules,white bread and margarine areautomatically fortified to ensure thatpeople who eat these products do not sufferfrom particular nutritional deficiencies.However, companies can also addfortifying ingredients to foods of morequestionable nutritional quality, to give theimpression that such products have healthgivingproperties. In 1999, when the <strong>Food</strong><strong>Commission</strong> conducted a survey of 260fortified food products, we foundthat nearly three-quarters werehigh in fat, sugar or salt.<strong>The</strong> <strong>Food</strong> <strong>Commission</strong>believes that the addition ofvitamins and minerals tofoods should not be used forthe purposes of ‘enrichment’of foods that also containhigh levels of fat, salt and/orsugar. This is a viewsupported by manyconsumer groups throughoutEurope, and upheld in Danishlaw which bans fortificationto prevent misleadingmarketing. But the industry ispushing hard to have its way.■ <strong>The</strong> <strong>Food</strong> <strong>Commission</strong> position paperFortified Junk is available in pdf format onthe website: www.foodcomm.org.ukUS government sued forreneging on claims law<strong>The</strong> US Center for Science in the PublicInterest (a consumer group affiliated to the<strong>Food</strong> <strong>Commission</strong>) and the US campaign groupPublic Citizen have filed a lawsuit against theUS government’s <strong>Food</strong> and Drug Administration(FDA) to challenge the FDA’s scheme topermit food companies to make health claimsbased on weak or inconclusive evidence.Formerly, the 1990 Nutrition Labeling andEducation Act allowed the FDA to approvehealth claims if they were supported by‘significant scientific agreement’.In 2003, the FDA announced it would allowfood companies to make health claims evenwhen evidence is too weak or inconclusive tomeet the statutory standard. Claims would evenbe permitted where the weight of the evidencesuggests that the claim is likely to be false, aslong as a disclaimer accompanies the claim.<strong>The</strong> consumer-interest lawsuit has beenfiled on the accusation that the FDA is violatingfood law requirements and is failing to protectconsumers from misleading claims.■ <strong>The</strong> complaint is available at:www.citizen.org/documents/compl-3.8xx.pdf<strong>Food</strong> Magazine 64 9 Jan/Mar 2004