Calls for food regulation not backed by study

Calls by researchers for more regulation on food and beverage are not backed by the findings of the study they use as evidence, says FGC. Otago and Auckland university researchers say their study showed children were bombarded by junk food advertisements in schools, homes and on the streets, and the way to reduce exposure was to impose a sugary drinks tax and regulate ‘junk’ food marketing and what foods can be sold in schools. But Katherine Rich says the study, which was drawn from 168 children wearing cameras around their necks to show what they were seeing, doesn’t back the calls for regulation.

“The research provides very little data that may be useful to inform policy or encourage change to reduce childhood obesity rates.

“The researchers have taken the widest possible definition of advertising by counting food wrappers, and have found, not surprisingly, that they are the main images captured by the cameras. They have deliberately led people to believe food packaging exists solely for marketing purposes. This is completely untrue.

“The main purpose of food packaging is to provide a safe and fresh product, as well as providing vital information such as allergen and nutrition labelling.

“It’s disappointing to see public money provided to support research being designed ujsing poor and inconsistent definitions.

“Most people would agree that the existence of a product in a dairy is not an advertisement. When the research concludes that most exposure took place in the home and was food wrapping, it’s unrealistic to think that any of the regulatory interventions they’ve called for will improve what food is provided at home.”

Katherine Rich's full response to a Fairfax Media inquiry on the study is below, followed by a link to the article published on Stuff.co.nz, and a link to the research study.

• Fairfax Media article

• The full study findings