Officials charged with keeping the nation in good shape have said they want to cut calories in pizzas, burgers and ready meals to .
The food industry welcomed the guidance, from Public Health England (PHE), possibly because it can make more money from selling smaller portions with fewer calories. But the response from scientists and consumer groups has been lukewarm.
Why act now? There is a growing call for regulation, including limiting the number of takeaway restaurants in urban areas, amid recognition that social inequality is at the root of the problem 鈥� obesity is rising in poor children and falling in the better off.
Advertisement
Might , the practice of reducing the weight of a product while keeping its price constant, do the job? It is already affecting foods in supermarkets. But it usually prompts a consumer backlash and restaurant portions seem relatively immune to the practice.
Why are we getting so fat?
The other route to calorie reduction is , the approach favoured by PHE. It cites the success of a salt reduction strategy where manufacturers were persuaded to reduce the salt content of processed foods. But they have yet to reveal how they would do this for calories.
Of course, lower-calorie versions of favourite dishes are nothing new. The food industry has spent billions developing low-calorie substitutes for fat and carbohydrates, as well as using other technologies to bulk out food with water. But it鈥檚 not always so simple.
There was Olestra, an indigestible fat substitute developed by Procter & Gamble and marketed in the 1990s to reduce the calorie content of potato crisps. But it came under heavy fire 鈥� not least because it had to carry a label on US products that warned consumers of possible side effects, such as abdominal cramps and diarrhoea. And studies suggest that intense artificial sweeteners and bulk sweeteners (such as polyols used to replace sugar in confectionery) may actually lead to weight gain. Often low fat has also equated with higher sugar.
There have been some successes: lower-calorie versions of milk, such as skimmed and semi-skimmed, oven chips and reduced-calorie ready meals, including low-fat burgers. However, the 鈥渉ealthier鈥� option often costs more than the standard version and so is unlikely to benefit the poor.
Energy density is at the heart of all this. School age children require between and activity level. This can best be met by a diet with an energy density between 1.5 and 2.5 kcal per gram. As a rule of thumb, foods with an energy density greater than 3 kcal/g are more conducive to weight gain and those less than 1.5 kcal/g promote weight loss.
Foods such as pizza, burgers and sausages all have an energy density above 3 kcal/g and snack foods such as biscuits and crisps around 5 kcal/g听鈥� so the reality is, they should be eaten sparingly. Lean meat and fish are in the healthy range, as are bread, pasta, rice and potatoes. Eating plenty of fruit and vegetables (unless deep fried) is helpful because they have a relatively low energy density (less than 1 kcal/g) owing to their higher water content and they are relatively bulky and therefore filling.
Ultimately, a strategy that focuses on reformulating high-energy density foods is unlikely to succeed as it does not truly address the causes of bad eating habits. Worse still, it may send the message that these foods are now healthy.
A better approach would be give parental guidance on appropriate portion sizes for children and to wean families off dependency on takeaways and ready meals, empowering them to prepare cheap healthy dishes containing plenty of vegetables at home.
听
听
