One of the many professionals working in dietitian jobs, Professor Tim Crowe, has argued that foods labelled as being 'light' alternatives might not be all that better nutritionally.

According to Crowe, writing for Theconversation.edu.au, consumers might as well add their own definition of food labelled as 'light' - such is the incredibility of the claim.

He said: "Front-of-package labelling is a powerful marketing tool used by food manufacturers to help trigger the purchasing reflect of consumers.

"If you see foods promoted as 'light' or 'lite', you could be forgiven that thinking the food must be low in fat and kilojoules. Wrong."

His comments may well interest fellow nutrition professionals; particularly as he also cited a recent study by Australia's Food Standards agency. It found that claims on food that said it was 'light' were often "misleading, confusing and outright trickery."

As such, Crowe advised consumers to be wary when choosing a product simply because it makes this claim. He concluded that unless the label specifically defines what is 'light' about it, it is more likely to be a marketing ploy that true nutritional information.

However not everyone agreed with Crowe, as an expert at Kidshealth.org said that if a label calls a product 'light', then it will have to have met certain nutritional standards in order to do so.