KEY POINTS:
Looming law changes allowing New Zealand food retailers to start making health claims about their products are being studied more closely following this week's Ribena brand self-destruction.
GlaxoSmithKline was humbled by two Auckland schoolgirls after they discovered the global pharmaceutical giant's Ribena did not have the Vitamin C
content promised. It has been ordered to tell the public the truth about its drinks in a new advertising campaign and pay a fine of $227,500.
But if the new law passes as planned later this year, food retailers like GSK will be able to start promoting more than just vitamins in their advertising: they can also hype health benefits from eating or drinking it.
Glen Wiggs, the former head of the Advertising Standards Authority, says the current rules about making food health claims are outdated and an "ass", making it difficult to filter out the bogus from the legitimate.
NZ Food Safety Authority policy director Carole Inkster says food manufacturers should take good note of the Ribena case.
"From our perspective, it's disappointing that a product that is so widely recognised in New Zealand has been called into disrepute and therefore a company that has had a long history of production in New Zealand has let this occur," she says.
"For us it's a bit of a wake-up call for manufacturers to say that while we might be undertaking surveys from time to time and checking a range of foods, the responsibility is on them - they do the business, and should take note of what's happening."
Later this year, companies will be able to make more health claims about their products. Inkster says that a publicity campaign designed to help inform businesses about the new rules will be run.
In Australia, businesses are allowed to make therapeutic claims regarding their food - so long as they can be backed up by good-quality research. In New Zealand, the supplements being sold in health food shops are classified as food and it's against the law to make any health claims about food - be it Coke or carrots, KFC's fried chicken or broccoli, Vitamin C or chocolate.
Wiggs says this has lead to the odd situation where the Ministry of Health recommends people eat certain foods for health benefits, but advertisers are legally barred from doing the same thing for the same product.
"The big thing is you cannot describe healthy food as healthy - it's banned, it's a banned naughty word. The law of the land says you cannot say certain food is healthy. I say if a food is healthy, you should be able to say it."
The law as it currently stands is "pro-obesity". Wiggs says the "heart tick" endorsement seen on many foods is technically a breach of the law.
"But the law is an ass and they're trying to work around it. This is where you get these innovative claims being made. Where some of them - virtually all - are probably in breach of the law, in the course of that you can't sort out the wheat from the chaff."
Wiggs says any sensible law should allow the people selling genuinely healthy food to say that it is, while those with no proof or substance to their claims should be caught.
The new law that Wiggs says will make breaches like the Ribena claim easier to catch is opposed by the Green Party.
MP Sue Kedgley says the Ribena case "calls into question the whole integrity of our food labelling system".
"What is the point of having these nutrition claims if we can't be certain they are accurate and why is there no monitoring?" she says.
The Food Safety Authority should conduct random testing of products, to make sure they actually do live up to what is written on the packets.
"If people knew that there would be random testing - we're not looking at someone doing it all day everyday, but if we knew the authority was monitoring them - then that would, in my view, give credibility to the claims made.
"It would have a powerful deterrent effect because manufacturers would be worried that what's happened to GlaxoSmithKline might happen to them. But at the moment, no-one is testing."
Kedgley points to a recent FSANZ survey that found that in 12 of 158 foods tested, salt levels were 50 per cent more than that claimed on labels. Despite these breaches, nothing happened to the companies misleading the public, says Kedgley.
While claims around food need to be better tested, the proposed new regulations around health supplements are the opposite - far too draconian and heavy handed.
"Consumers need to be assured that all supplements are safe and true to label, as is the case with food - we don't need a heavy-handed system."
Manufacturers of health supplements have complained that the new rules bill will stifle innovation and the production of small-scale health products.
Food Safety Minister Annette King has described the New Zealand regulatory system around supplements (currently classed under food rules) as "Third World".
She says the bill - which is currently before a select committee - would put an end to New Zealanders buying "a product and then finding out it's got grass clippings in it, or lead, or arsenic, or Viagra, which is some of the things we've found in some complementary medicines".
Professor Janet Hoek, a marketing specialist at Massey University, says it is important to "build on the lessons learned" from the Ribena case. There is a danger, she says, that the incident could be seen in isolation.
"It doesn't take more than an educated guess to realise that other food products marketed as beneficial to health, for example by being low in fat or sugar, may also be misleadingly or deceptively labelled."
There is now an even higher awareness of the danger of obesity and "the importance of consumers having access to correct and easily accessible information about food".
The use of health-related claims has "a very clear potential" to mislead and deceive consumers.
"The Ribena case highlights the need for clear food labelling such as a traffic lights system, where consumers do not need to interpret complex nutrition information before making a purchase decision," says Hoek.
