The other strength of this system, according to Scarborough, is that it only considers basic nutrition science, like the approximate amount of sugar or fat people should eat in a day. This makes it immune to the seemingly endless flow of media reports that alternately hail and bash foods like eggs, coffee, and alcohol.
Of course, ideas about basic nutrition science vary widely—even among scientists—and there are still those who think the system is flawed or even harmful. As might be expected, big food companies are voicing the most opposition. Paul Fitzsimmons, director of corporate communications for Kellogg Europe, says one problem with the system is that it considers all food in 100g portions rather than in the serving sizes people actually eat. This means that foods served in larger portions, like lasagna and Big Macs, may inaccurately get scored as healthy, while foods served in much smaller portions, like mayonnaise, get classified as unhealthy. “No one eats 100 grams of mayonnaise," Fitzsimmons says. "And people don’t just eat a quarter of a [400-gram] single-person serving of frozen lasagna.”
Alarm bells also go off for one of the less objectionable (health-wise and cuisine-wise) staples of English cuisine: cheese. “Some yogurts and virtually all cheese other than cottage cheese fall outside the range of the healthy section,” says Judith Bryans, director of the United Kingdom’s Dairy Council. “People do not consume huge quantities of cheese, but because this model scores on 100 grams, it’s [judged as] unhealthy.”
Ofcom is introducing the model gradually—it’s been in effect since July 1—slowly decreasing the number of commercials advertising unhealthy foods to children under 10. The more stringent rules, regulating advertising to impressionable minds younger than 16, kicked in on January 1, 2008. All junk-food commercials will be off kids' TV by 2009.
Researchers predict that rules like this one will cut children’s exposure to junk-food advertising by 40 percent, and they hope that this decrease will improve children's health overall. Ofcom began reviewing the system last month, says Peter Bourton, a senior policy executive at the agency, though he says they may never know how well the system works. “Realistically, you can’t expect to see an effect in the space of one or two years,” he says. “There are many, many other factors [in children’s health], and it’s not going to be possible to disentangle them.” So far, though, Ofcom seems happy with its regulation. “Advertisers didn’t want to have advertising regulated in this way,” Bourton says. “Broadcasters were worried about losing advertising. But we had the power to regulate. We took a balanced decision and they don’t like it, but they can lump it.”
Limits on advertising may well be followed by bolder steps. Some scientists, including Mike Rayner, the lead scientist on the team that generated the model, advocate a so-called fat tax that would make junk food harder to come by and subsidize healthy food in an effort to allow lower-income families to eat more healthfully. It’s an idea that met a wall of opposition when Kelly Brownell, cofounder and director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, suggested it in an op-ed in The New York Times. Now it seems a few bricks may be falling out of that wall, though the U.S. government hasn't taken any steps yet. “People recognize how serious the obesity problem is, particularly in children. People are more aware of the marketing practices of the industry and how destructive they are and are willing to consider broad social actions,” Brownell says.
