The Grocer's exclusive story revealing how the error in calorie count limits prompted the FSA to put a confusing spin on the news, writes Adam Leyland


From the moment The Grocer broke the story 'Calorie count guide wrong for 18 years', we knew the Food Standards Agency would want to sweep the news under the carpet.

A mistake this big was always going to be headline news: as The Grocer went to press the story had been read by an audience of 115 million [Durrants], a figure that only includes media organisations directly crediting The Grocer as the source.

The new research by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition suggested calorie limits for adults should be up to 400 calories a day higher than current recommendations. As we explained, this had significant repercussions for the industry as it meant that, if the findings were applied, healthy labelling systems, the Nutrient Profiling Model and most dietary advice would need to be modified.

And we also (rightly) predicted that the media would use this as an opportunity to suggest consumers were being given a green light to eat more which, with 60% of the adult population overweight, was not the case. What we did not expect was for the FSA to spin the story as blatantly as they did.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, FSA head of nutrition Dr Alison Tedstone told viewers the new methodology reflected changes in lifestyle and population (see box) over the past 18 years. "The committee... produced new draft recommendations about the amount of calories we should eat, which are more in keeping with what we are actually eating now which is too much," she said.

This caused understandable confusion for the presenters. But, despite Dr Tedstone being on the board of the SACN itself, the report itself undermines her claims.

The calorie recount was, as the FSA had confirmed to The Grocer earlier in the week, the result of the SACN using a more accurate methodology than in the original study.

Devised in 1991, scientists had measured the amount of energy we use in a day by shutting undergraduates in a room for a week at a time, fitting them with oxygen masks and observing them.

This wasn't the most accurate system: not only are students unrepresentative of the population, but shutting people in rooms tends to reduce their activity levels.

A more accurate and expensive method uses Doubly Labelled Water to track calorie consumption. This technique was relatively new in 1991, and a lack of studies and funding led the committee to use only the outdated energy calculations to set the guideline calorie levels. But thanks to recent US Doubly Labelled Water energy studies, last week's SACN report included better data and led to a more accurate result. This has nothing to do with changes in the population or lifestyle.

Misleading the public
What is curious about the FSA's position is that saying so may mislead the public: if anything, experts believe the UK is getting more sedentary. So suggesting changes in lifestyle means we need more energy, or that heavier people need to eat more, could influence those most likely to be overeating into wrongly changing their behaviour.

Science gets outdated and new research often exposes inaccuracies in older studies. As recently as last Thursday, the FSA had restated in its board meeting the agency's commitment to be science-led. It should stand by this commitment, rather than being afraid to admit its guidance may have been wrong.

This week the FSA defended its new position. A spokeswoman said: "Any changes in the report and at this stage it is only a draft reflect changes in the UK population since the original study."

The report suggests otherwise.

Read more
Calorie count guide wrong for 18 years (14 November 2009)
Editor's Comment: Upping the calorie count will turn reds to amber and ambers to green (14 November 2009)