Nutritional profiling vs guideline daily amounts as a means of helping consumers make appropriate food choices

Abstract

Purpose

To distinguish between the use of Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) for labelling purposes and traffic‐light labelling and to demonstrate the advantages of GDAs over traffic lights.

Design/methodology/approach

The advantages of GDAs are laid out along with the disadvantages of traffic‐light labelling.

Findings

The background to the development of GDAs and the FSA traffic light scheme, currently being consumer tested, is explained. The Food and Drink Federation recommend that GDAs will be of more value to consumers as opposed to traffic lights, as the GDA system will help individuals to build up a balanced diet which is appropriate for them. However, education on how to use GDAs will be vital, and this is already under way.

Practical implications

A traffic‐light system is a very simplistic subjective approach to signpost labelling and makes it hard to convey the true nutritional value of a food. For this reason it may mislead consumers. GDAs are more objective and will help inform and educate consumers on how to eat a balanced diet.

Originality/value

The paper seeks to lay out the concept of GDAs and why it is a labelling concept that will help consumers with their diet. It should be of interest to those working in the food industry, health professionals, food and health academics and anyone who communicates messages about food and health or indeed consumes packaged food.

Citation

Bussell, G. (2005), "Nutritional profiling vs guideline daily amounts as a means of helping consumers make appropriate food choices", Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/00346650510625548