Having written two columns, I feel you are getting to know me, so I'll introduce my family.
My husband could be regarded as 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. I asked his opinion on what was currently topical in food and he replied: removing hydrogenated and trans fats from foods. 'Old news' I hear you cry.
This may certainly be the case for some companies, but must others wake up and consider reformulation before nutrition labelling and profiling demonise their products? We will await the final legislative proposals on nutrition labelling to see whether trans fat labelling becomes compulsory as in Denmark and other countries.
Also in the news is the long awaited Ofcom verdict on the TV advertising of junk food to children. I am not convinced that this will have the desired effect. I have two young children and they are far more likely to demand a food product bearing a free plastic toy, than one advertised on television. Will an advertising ban have an impact? I'm no psychologist, but it won't in my house.
Again, we are back to thinking about nutrient profiles, for which foods may be considered unhealthy. We have heard that the European Commission Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation is to be subject to a delay due to the incorrect comitology reference. Much work remains to be done in the health claims area before the regulation really bites. But on a more positive note, at least we are some way towards harmonisation in this controversial field.
At Leatherhead Food International, we have been reviewing nutrition labelling. Many in industry have taken the opportunity to bemoan the lack of consumer understanding of the contents of nutrition panels on packs and their failure to reflect current health concerns.
Let us hope that the Food Standards Agency's 'Better Regulation' food labelling review results in clear rules of benefit to consumers and industry alike.
Kath Veal is international regulatory team leader at Leatherhead Food International