Where Front-of-Package Food Labels Are Headed

Nestle_cookies_10-14_post.jpg

JoelnSouthernCA/flickr


The Institute of Medicine (IOM) released its first front-of-package (FOP) labeling report (view PDF here) yesterday morning. Phase I is a tough, detailed examination of about 20 of the existing FOP schemes along with some recommendations about what such schemes ought to do.

FOP labels are those little spots, check marks, and tokens that are all over food packages these days and that are supposed to indicate that the product is especially healthy for you. They may seem utterly trivial, but they are of desperate importance to food companies. FOP labels sell food products. Food marketers love them and need them. The FDA worries that having so many of them confuses the public, and that the schemes are based on criteria that serve industry purposes more than to promote public health.

As the IOM press release explains:

A multitude of nutrition rating, or guidance, systems have been developed by food manufacturers, government agencies, nutrition groups, and others in recent years with the intent of helping consumers quickly compare products' nutritional attributes and make healthier choices. Ratings are typically communicated to shoppers through symbols placed prominently on food packaging, usually on the front, or on retail shelf tags. Unlike the Nutrition Facts panel, these rating systems and symbols are unregulated, and different systems focus on different nutrients. The variation may confuse consumers, and questions have been raised about the systems' underlying nutritional criteria.

The committee did a terrific analysis of current FOP schemes. My favorite parts are its

    • Clear, concise histories of nutrition and FOP labeling (students: take note!)
    • Detailed evaluation of the strengths (few) and weaknesses (many) of the existing schemes
    • Demonstration of the inconsistent results of applying the schemes to specific foods

The report gives examples of the inconsistent results of three scoring schemes: Guiding Stars, NRFI [Nutrient-Rich Foods Index], and Nu-Val.

    • Instant oatmeal received 3 Guiding Stars, and scores of 87 by NRFI and 39 by NuVal.

    • Non-instant oatmeal received 2 Guiding Stars, and scores of 22 by NRFI and 57 by NuVal

    • Toasted oat cereal received 2 Guiding Stars, and scores of 84 by NRFI and 37 by NuVal

    • Fat free milk, 1-percent milk, and fat-free plain yogurt received 3 Guiding Stars, but fat free milk was scored 56 by NRFI and 91 by NuVal; 1-percent milk was scored 30 by NRFI and 81 by NuVal, and fat-free plain yogurt was scored 43 by NRFI and 96 by NuVal.

The committee's key recommendation: FOP labels should deal with just four nutrients: calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium.

These nutrients, says the committee, "are routinely overconsumed and associated most strongly with diet-related health problems affecting many Americans, including obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer."

Comment: Trans fat seems unnecessary here. It is already out of most packaged foods. Or maybe the committee thinks that leaving it off will give food companies permission to put hydrogenated oils back in?

The committee chose not to add sugars to this list.

The committee concurred that both added and naturally occurring sugars contribute to the caloric content of foods and beverages and overconsumption of high-calorie products can lead to obesity. Highlighting calories per serving in nutrition rating systems would address this concern.

Comment: I think consumers want to know about added sugars in food products. I certainly do.

Phase II comes next.

It will examine designs and look at consumer understanding of the labels, and will discuss "the pros and cons of having a single, standardized front-label food guidance system that is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration."

Presumably, Phase II will deal with questions that are not addressed in the Phase I report:

    • Will this scheme supersede all of the other labeling systems currently on food packages?

    • Will it be voluntary or mandatory? For all food products, or just selected ones?

    • If the scheme is voluntary, why would food companies choose to use it since it mostly highlights the negatives—the nutrients to be avoided?

    • How will it affect the nutrient-content claims currently on food packages? (Examples: "Contains 8 vitamins!" "100% vitamin C!" "High fiber!")

    • How will it affect shelf-labeling schemes such as the Nu-Val system used at Price Chopper supermarkets and the ANDI system used by Whole Foods?

FOP labels are about marketing, not health.

This scheme, like the many others developed by food companies singly or together, is designed to help the public decide whether one highly processed, packaged food product is nutritionally better than another.

As I have discussed many times on my blog, this approach raises a philosophical question: Is a slightly "better for you" food product necessarily a good choice?

I hope the committee will ponder this and some of my other questions as it enters Phase II.


This post also appears on foodpolitics.com.

Presented by

Marion Nestle is a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She is the author of Food Politics, Safe Food, What to Eat, and Pet Food Politics. More

Nestle also holds appointments as Professor of Sociology at NYU and Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. She is the author of three prize-winning books: Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (revised edition, 2007), Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (2003), and What to Eat (2006). Her most recent book is Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat. She writes the Food Matters column for The San Francisco Chronicle and blogs almost daily at Food Politics.

Never Tell People How Old They Look

Age discrimination affects us all. Who cares about youth? James Hamblin turns to his colleague Jeffrey Goldberg for advice.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Never Tell People How Old They Look

Age discrimination affects us all. James Hamblin turns to a colleague for advice.

Video

Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

Video

Pittsburgh: 'Better Than You Thought'

How Steel City became a bikeable, walkable paradise

Video

A Four-Dimensional Tour of Boston

In this groundbreaking video, time moves at multiple speeds within a single frame.

Video

Who Made Pop Music So Repetitive? You Did.

If pop music is too homogenous, that's because listeners want it that way.

More in Health

From This Author

Just In