Hi Rosemary.
I too am very concerned at the potential for marketers of processed foods undermine healthy / fresh eating strategies using devices like the NHF Tick.
Since the Tick is unlikely to go away - as a suggestion, perhaps the NHF could be convinced to combine the Tick with the traffic light concept:
Green Tick - products may be consumed regularly as part of a healthy diet?
Orange Tick - products to be consumed in moderation?
Red Tick - products to be consumed in limited quantities / occasions - treats?
Keep up the good work.
Peterm

A consumer who relies on a tick to choose healthy food has lost the plot, or their mind. What's wrong with KNOWLEDGE?

Thanks Rosemary for bringing this to our attention.

There is no two ways about it; the NHF, which is an excellent organisation, is in dire risk of its credibility being skittled. It urgently needs to reform the Tick program.

As you say:

“With their excellent anti-smoking campaigns, the NHF did not appeal to the industry to make slightly safer cigarettes. They pushed people to give up smoking. It's a pity they don't take a similar attitude to poor food choices.”

This is something that the Rudd government should enthusiastically embrace. I can only imagine that both Health Minister Roxon and PM Rudd would be most interested in undertaking or overseeing this reform.

The Heart Foundation ticks lost all credibility for me years ago when I realised they sold them. As soon as money came into the equation they lost their integrity.

Traffic light ticks would not be necessary if the proposed traffic light system was applied to all foods, as Heart Foundation ticks would become completely redundant.

Not negating the other work that the heart foundation performs, I have to agree with Candide on the credibility issue ie. payment for ticks.

Reading labels and doing research (on additives for example)is still the best way to purchase if you are concerned about what you eat.

The consumer is the one who pays in the long run as business naturally has to recoup the costs of paying for the tick which does not provide the full picture as outlined in Rosemary's article

Its very easy to eat a balanced diet that is healthy for the whole body.

Focus on fresh, whole foods. Eat lotsa fruit, veg, grains, legumes, nuts/seeds and modest to minimal animal products with the possible exception of fish. Minimise or emilinate processed foods and empty hydrocarbons.

Very straight foward. One need not rely on logos to identify foods as (less un)healthy. There is the issue of chemicals used in the production of fresh foods. l generally assume that they all meet safety standards. Beyond that, wash the food well, maybe buy organic if l feel like paying more and grow my own fruit and vegies on the side.

The time/convenience factor is prolly the biggest contributor to poor diet, particularly around processed food choices. Respectfully, this is borne of apathy. Takes a few seconds to look at the label and make a quick decision. Personally l generally avoid all bar a few processed foods which gtenerally might contain some salt/sugar.

l acieve convenience by making a blanket choice to exclude processed foods. Takes a bit of time at the begining, like anything really. Once you know how, it saves a lot of time, but you gotta invest the upfront effort for the longer term benefits. Delayed gratification. Which is the opposite of a convenience mentality.

It also helps to develop a basic understanding of nutrition. The basic food groups, how fat/carbs/potein effect the body. Very simple stuff. Most GPs can provide you with a pamphlet on it. Takes about 10mins to read. Otherwise there's the internet.

That people are 'too busy' and too plugged into convenience to eat healthy speaks to the general malaise.

Fresh and balanced diet will eventually free up time, keep you out of the doctors office and hospital, reduce your food bill, your future medical and medications bills, you'll be fitter and more lively into your latter years, feel better immediately . Food selection and preparation doesnt have to be a hassle requiring time saving convenience. It can be interesting, fun and way for people to get together and share all that stuff.

Last night there was a Heart Foundation ad on television defending the Ticks, and pointing out that they had to be earned. I think the Macdonalds ticks last year damaged them badly - and Maccas suckered them (and continues to do so) by using a golden heart, which then became a beating 'M'.

Perhaps it is time for the Heart Foundation to look for other ways of fund raising, though with cancer receiving so much publicity (Relay for Life and the overdone breast cancer pink stuff) it will be an uphill battle.

I work on the adage that if it has to undergo a test to see if it is healthy, i.e. if it is not immediately obvious, then it is a no-go zone. The processes to preserve food to give them a shelf-life are too dangerous. I live a very long way from a town with few trips so use few fast foods and grow as much food as I can myself. Though I have to say I like cheese, pasta and rice and buy them. I also became incredulous when I realised that the tick was sold rather than earned, with the buyer of the goods footing the ultimate bill. So I don't buy ticked food. It is just not healthy, money-wise or food-wise!