Expert statements

The GDA system as has been implemented in Australia by a number of large multi-national food manufactures has not I believe contributed to consumers making healthier food choices. The GDA system is hard for consumers to understand, let alone interpret, and in the end only adds confusion to an already confused consumer.

Craig Sinclair Director, Cancer Prevention Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Australia

A system like the GDA is so flawed that it only confuses the public.  If a rating system is under consideration, I favor a traffic-light system like that used in the U.K.  It is much easier to use and understand, and much less likely to be misinterpreted.

Marion Nestle Professor, New York University and author of Food Politics and What to Eat

The GDA approach has the unfortunate potential to make healthy foods look unhealthy, and to make junk foods appear nutritious. What’s more, by highlighting a small number of largely-negative factors, GDA perpetuates our dysfunctional relationship with food, implying that eating well consists only of avoiding calories, fats, or sodium. How much better it would be to develop a system based on positive information, to help consumers take pleasure in real foods.

Cynthia Harriman Director of Food and Nutrition Strategies, Oldways
and the Whole Grains Council

Arne Astrup, professor of nutrition, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, and president of IASO (The International Association for the Study of Obesity)

GDA is clearly a food industry initiative to achieve three objectives: Give the appearance that they are doing something positive; head off regulations to have more helpful nutrient information for consumers such as traffic lights; keep the consumers confused.  All three objectives are currently being successfully met.

Boyd Swinburn MBChB, MD, FRACP, Professor of Population Health, and Director, WHO Collaborating Center for Obesity Prevention, Deakin University, Australia