Red, green, yellow health labels?

**Will** · 03-27-2006, 10:43 AM

I saw this on some sandwiches the other day, and apparently it's a scheme which is being rolled out and made compulsory across the UK. These little labels tell you how healthy something is in five different areas (I think). Such as salt, fat, carbohydrates, etc. Green of course being healthy, red being unhealthy.

I hope it's true, as I never know what is healthy and what isn't half the time. Anyone know if this is true?

Positive Stu · 03-27-2006, 12:04 PM

I saw one of these labels the other day, but I just assumed it was another misleading lable which food manufacturers seem to favour right now.

When you think about it, isn't it horrible the way these food manufacturers are prepared to mislead the public, and potentially damage thier health severely. All so they can make more money! How do these people sleep at night?

Sid · 03-27-2006, 02:21 PM

I think the labels are a great idea. It'll save me reading the small print on the packaging.

It may even force manufacturers to make their food more healthy. If you're in the supermarket and see lots of red on the packet, or wherever it may be, hopefully people will go for the healthier option, leaving all the red stuff on the shelves.

Then again, have you seen some of the people who go for healthy options? In Marks's they have a full section of healthy stuff. Some of the people browsing the section don't seem to have the energy to lift their arms to the higher shelves. A balanced diet is what's needed, and if the labels help that's a good thing. If they don't there's not much more you could do.

sybylyfyrysms · 03-27-2006, 10:48 PM

my healthy-eating friend is pale and devastatingly beautiful in a skeletal kinda way. she looks fragile but she is one of the strongest people i know.

**Will** · 03-27-2006, 11:08 PM

I'd gladly eat healthy if I knew what was healthy! Trouble is, as Stu has pointed out, just because something says 'low carbs', it doesn't make it healthy. It could say 'low in sulfuric acid' too, but it wouldn't be any healthier.

David Courtney · 03-28-2006, 12:44 AM

I think some of the labels are good, and some are bad. For example, on a packet of sainsbury's crisps, the calerie content is listed as red, because the amound of caleries they contain is high for a snack, but the same amount in a meal would be low, etc.
Some, however, are labelling the colours based purely on the percentage Recommended Daily Allowence is in them, so crisps and other snacks get green for things like fat, caleries and salt, wheras meals get reds :\

had_enough · 03-28-2006, 06:43 AM

If we are to believe these labels on advising us what to eat, then who says they are right. Do we nilly willy believe/allow the food agency to dictate to us, or should common sense prevale?

Bruv · 03-28-2006, 10:59 PM

The food Agencies are Advisory not Dictatory........a slight diffence.

**Will** · 04-01-2006, 09:52 AM

They were just talking about this on the news, and while it's a good idea in princible, many super markets have rejected it as the advice is poor. Apparently it needs a big rethink before it's endosed by the majority.