The panel reviewing the Food Standards Agency's Nutrient Profiling Model could give chewing gum an extraordinary exemption from the flawed tool, which underpins Ofcom's ban on advertising junk food to kids. The model rates all foods on the basis of a 100g portion. This means it classifies many wholesome and nutritious foods eaten in far smaller quantities - such as cereals, cheese, Marmite and raisins - as high fat, salt and sugar foods, which means they can't be advertised during children's programming. Documents released this week by the FSA show that the International Chewing Gum Association told the panel last October the use of a 100g amount led to "unrealistic and misleading scores for many products including chewing gum". "Only about 1g-3g of chewing gum is eaten per day; a reference amount of 100g equals 33 sticks," it said. "The contribution of chewing gum to health and wellness should be taken account of by the model. It can be a delivery vehicle for micronutrients and provides other benefits (eg sugar-free gum benefits dental health). We strongly contend that the model is not appropriate for chewing gum. It is not a conventional food. We recommend exemption of chewing gum from the NP model." In its response, published this week, the panel said: "The panel will consider this issue further to ensure the choice of base in the model appropriately classifies chewing gum." It is not known exactly what the panel means by "appropriately classifies". However, what is notable is that it has gone further in responding to the chewing gum lobby than to similar inquiries from other parts of the food industry. When the matter of the 100g reference amount was raised by the Association of Cereal Food Manufacturers, the panel simply said: "The panel is aware many breakfast cereals are classified as HFSS by the model. The panel will consider this issue further." The FSA insisted the longer response to the ICGA's submission was of no significance. "The panel is definitely not giving chewing gum any special treatment," said a spokeswoman. The papers also show the review team is lukewarm to the notion that the 100g base should be changed. It said: "A 'per 100g' base was chosen to maintain simplicity of the NP model and reflect nutrition labelling requirements. "A 'per serving' base was found to have a number of difficulties including a lack of agreement on serving sizes and different serving sizes for different age groups. There was little difference in the classification of foods when using either base." And in minutes of the panel's last meeting in January, also published this week, the review team was said to have noted there were a significant number of peer-reviewed publications that showed the FSA model "performed better than other models tested". The inconsistencies in the FSA's nutrient profiling model were the subject of the high profile Weigh It Up! campaign, launched by The Grocer last year, which called for an urgent review of the model. The current review process, which began last June, is expected to conclude early next year.

Topics