– (Gustavo Arrais/)
On the last April 17th, the Environment Committee (CMA) of the Senate, led by Senator Cidinho Santos (PR-MT) approved the end of the obligation, on food packaging, of the symbol that indicates the presence of a transgenic ingredient. It is the latest battle in a dispute between consumers, environmental groups, agribusiness representatives and the food industry.
The symbol (a yellow triangle with the letter “T” in black) has existed since 2003, when the federal government approved for the first time the planting of transgenic soybeans (ie, genetically altered) in the country. The CMA alleges that, in these 15 years, there has been no scientific research worldwide that proves that the consumption of transgenic food is harmful to health.
The scientific community counters by saying that research of this type takes longer than that and that, while these consequences are not fully understood, it is up to the consumer to decide whether he wants to consume this type of food or not. Consumer law entities also insist on this key: the absence of the symbol violates the citizen’s right to information.
The CMA report counters this argument by emphasizing that there remains a requirement for legible label text similar to “(product name) transgenic” or “contains (name of ingredient) transgenic”. Entities such as IDEC (Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense), however, claim that the yellow triangle was much easier and faster to interpret. Just as text, the information is not explicit enough.
THE NUTRITIONAL TABLE WAR
The debate on how certain information needs to be shown to the consumer is not restricted to the presence of transgenic ingredients. After three years of discussion, Anvisa (National Health Surveillance Agency) is analyzing proposals to try to make the nutritional table, mandatory in most foods, easier to understand. Evidently, entities linked to consumer rights and the food industry offer different solutions to this problem.
Signaling is particularly important in the case of processed and ultra-processed foods. In natura is food as we find it in nature, like an ear of corn. When it goes through some industry, it is already considered processed. For example, canned corn. And when The manufacturing involves many steps, techniques and ingredients (some only for industrial use, such as preservatives), so it is called ultra-processed. For example, corn breakfast cereal.
Check out the two proposals for a new pattern on the packaging below:
– (Disclosure/reproduction/)
PROPOSAL OF CONSUMER DEFENSE ENTITIES
Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense (Idec)
Main changes:
– Triangular warning seals on the front from the packaging of processed and ultra-processed foods, when there is sweetener, trans fat or excess sugar, sodium, total and saturated fat.
– These products cannot display marketing communication aimed at The children (such as a mascot drawn on the packaging) or information nutritional complementary (e.g. “rich in fiber”).
– Standardization from the portion in table nutritional based on 100 g of the product and also from the complete package.
– Design from the table nutritional with better readability, with letters in greater contrast.
– Numerical indication of the total number of ingredients in the list (the more ingredients, the more processed the product).
– Recommendation for moderate consumption in packages of culinary ingredients such as sugar, salt, oil and butter.
Reviews of opponents:
– Triangular front alert can categorize food as “good” or “bad” instead of “suitable” or “not suitable”.
– It can alarm consumers and reduce sales of products, especially ultra-processed ones.
– (Disclosure/reproduction/)
PROPOSAL FROM THE FOOD INDUSTRY
Brazilian Association of Food Industries (Abia)
Main changes:
– Standardization from the portion in table nutritional based on 100 g of product.
– On the front of the label, color highlight for the content of four components according to values for an ideal daily diet.
Criticisms of the supervisory bodies:
– Colors can be confusing. If the food has a red alert and two green alerts, for example, the consumer may think that the risk The health is less.
– Continue with the same information from the table nutritional current, without additions.
– As The table frontal can be made with a small portion, it may not give a clear reference from the ingested amount of a component.
In recent months, representatives of the proposals have released favorable surveys The your models. Commissioned by Abia, an Ibope survey states that 67% of respondents prefer the model with the traffic light colors. A study carried out by Idec with The USP and UFPR showed that 75% of people understand better The information with the use from the warning with triangles.
The data also show that The table nutritional current really needs to change. According to a Datafolha survey, 48% of people do not read the information on labels. Another, carried out by Idec, reveals that 25.1% fully understand the label and 34.8% understand it almost completely, but 31.1% understand it partially and 8.5% understand it very little. Still according to these data, the main problems that hinder understanding are very small letters (61%), difficult technical terms (51%), visual pollution (46%) and the need to calculate the portion (41%).
Finally, according to the survey Brasil Food Trends 2020, by Fiesp/Ibope, the information most sought after by consumers is total calories (52%). Then fat (39%), cholesterol (29%), sugar (27%), protein (25%), preservatives (22%), carbohydrates (22%), gluten (10%) and sodium (8%). This last value is quite revealing: it indicates that a large part of the population still does not understand that a diet rich in sodium is associated with high blood pressure, heart problems and other diseases. Both the new signs proposed by Abia and by Idec plan to give more emphasis to this ingredient.
[NEWSLETTER]