Restaurants And Caterers Voluntarily To Display Calories On Menus

...but what of the possible adverse implications of this?

By June 2009 more than 450 food outlets across the country will

have introduced calorie information, some on a pilot basis. This

has been trumpeted by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the

Government in its Healthy Weight Healthy Lives campaign as a great

step forward in informing consumers and assisting them in making

healthier choices. References have also been made to similarities

with voluntary front-of-pack labelling of packaged foods with

Guideline Daily Allowance (GDA) information and "traffic

light" markings. It is also said to mimic the controversial

scheme that has been reintroduced and which has been in operation

in New York from March 2008, whereby the NYC Health Department has

required chain restaurants with more than 15 outlets prominently to

display calorie information.

The main difference between the UK and New York scheme is the

mandatory nature of the American system. However, within the UK

there is a growing momentum for voluntary recommendations being

used to 'require' labelling far in excess of legal

requirements, as companies that do not conform to the FSA

guidelines (which, it is argued, were prepared with a view to

protecting and benefiting consumers) face the risk of damage to

brand reputation. Difficulties that have been raised with the

scheme are that other nutrients such as salt, fat and sugar are not

listed. It is accepted that there needs to be simplicity but if the

arguments for the provision of calorie information are accepted

then full nutrient profiling, in whatever form, may not be too far

behind.

What of the situation where a low calorific value or green logo

indicating this becomes equated with the healthier option in the

mind of the consumer? Providing information is a responsibility in

itself, and companies may then become liable for any false or

misleading claims.

Manufacturers have a general obligation to warn consumers of

product risks. However, in the absence of specific regulatory

objections, this obligation exists only where the manufacturer can

reasonably anticipate that health hazards will arise during the

normal expected use of a product.

There has previously been a common sense application to food

that the reasonable consumer will be aware that certain indulgent

foods will be high in fat/have a high calorific value and as part

of normal expected use no health hazard should be anticipated.

There is a worrying trend that in future this...