Kit Broihier, MS, RD, LD, Guiding Stars04.14.14
Consumers and food manufacturers seem to have a love-hate relationship with food labels. Consumers like having information literally at their fingertips, but frequently admit to not even giving the labels a glance. Manufacturers like the ability to promote nutritional attributes on the labels, but dislike the cost and trouble that often goes along with providing that information.
Nevertheless, it’s been just more than 20 years since the familiar Nutrition Facts box was mandated per the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. It has not been revised since 2006, when the addition of trans fat appeared. A number of health authorities and consumer groups—as well as the FDA—believed that the label needed a makeover to reflect current science and to enhance its use as a relevant consumer communication/education tool. The FDA announced its proposed food label tweaks in late February; here’s a look at what’s in store…
A Fresh Face
Aging eyes aren’t the only reason the current Nutrition Facts label can be hard to read—some of the type is very small. The label is also crowded with information, making it difficult to find what one is interested in knowing. The new label looks cleaner and is much easier on the eyes. It will feature much bigger, bolder type overall, and certain sections will get even more attention due to placement and extra-big type. A similar number of nutrients will be listed, but vitamins A and C are bid adieu (their inclusion on the label would be voluntary) and two common “shortfall” nutrients would be added: vitamin D and potassium.
Emphasis on Calories & Serving Sizes
Updating serving size information to reflect what people actually eat (instead of what they ought to be eating) is a change that will no doubt invite many comments both “for” and “against.” The original standard servings sizes used on the Nutrition Facts label reflected food consumption data from the 1970s and 1980s. There is newer data available that illustrates how off-base some of those original serving sizes are in relation to today’s eaters. (Did anyone ever eat just half a muffin, anyway?)
Packaged food that is usually consumed in one sitting would be labeled as one serving, which makes it easier for consumers to get a grip on portions and the real number of calories in that package. Larger packages that contain multiple servings of a food would have two columns of calorie and nutrition information showing the amounts contained in a serving as well as what’s in the entire package. And speaking of servings, instead of using the word “serving,” the new label would simplify it and just say “Amount in 2/3 cup” for example, instead of making consumers search the label for that information.
One very obvious change is right up top in big letters and numbers: Calories. Giving caloric information such prominence is no accident of course. The FDA cited evolving science as the reason for many of the proposed label changes. The special emphasis on calories and food portions speaks to the nation’s increasing attention to public health problems related to the consumption of excess calories (such as obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes), and is a strategic move to help consumers be proactive in efforts to fight obesity and improve their overall health.
The Sugar Situation
Consumer and health groups are applauding the proposed breakout of “added sugars” under the total “sugars” listing on the label. Currently, an inspection of the ingredient list for any of the myriad sugar synonyms is necessary in order to determine if a product has added sugar—the label just lists total sugars and doesn’t separate out those added to a food.
Sugars naturally present in a food such as fruit (fructose) and milk products (lactose) provide calories as well of course, but they also come alongside the nutrients inherent in the food—not so with added sugars, which just add empty calories. The recent tightening of the World Health Organization’s added sugar recommendations, combined with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines and current recommendations from groups such as the American Heart Association has continued to bring consumer focus on added sugars in the food supply. The products where this change will make the most difference include the obvious candies, baked desserts, sodas, energy drinks and sweetened fruit drinks, but also includes the dairy category, where yogurts, frozen desserts and flavored milks contain varying amounts of added sweeteners.
Of course, industry opinion of this particular labeling change centers on the difficulty of separating the sugars due to the lack of analysis tools. The FDA has suggested that manufacturers put in place additional record-keeping procedures in order to facilitate this process, though whether that proves acceptable or possible remains to be seen. Additionally, there is the question of whether the separation of added sugars from naturally present sugars reinforces the idea among consumers that certain sugars are “better” or “worse” for health than others. After all, the ultimate goal from sugar information on a label is to help consumers more easily decrease their total sugar consumption.
This Isn’t the Last Word
At this point, these labeling changes are proposals. The changes affect all packaged foods except certain meat, poultry and processed egg products, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. Public comments on the proposal will be accepted until June 2. The real costs involved in changing and reprinting food packaging, as well as impassioned arguments about the health merits of some of the proposed changes are likely to be the focus of industry comments. Food rating systems that rely on information provided on the Nutrition Facts label, such as the Guiding Stars nutrition guidance program, will also clearly be affected by any mandated changes. Hang on; this could be a bumpy ride.
Kit Broihier, MS, RD, LD is a member of the Guiding Stars Scientific Advisory Panel. As part of the panel, she works collaboratively on reviewing the latest nutrition guidelines and scientific research as it relates to the Guiding Stars algorithm. The Guiding Stars program is an at-a-glance nutrition guidance program that rates the nutritional quality of food using information from the Nutrition Facts Panel and the ingredients list. Foods are rated and receive a score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 stars. The more nutritional value a food has, the more Guiding Stars it receives. If a food doesn’t receive a star, it means it doesn’t meet the rigorous criteria.
Nevertheless, it’s been just more than 20 years since the familiar Nutrition Facts box was mandated per the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. It has not been revised since 2006, when the addition of trans fat appeared. A number of health authorities and consumer groups—as well as the FDA—believed that the label needed a makeover to reflect current science and to enhance its use as a relevant consumer communication/education tool. The FDA announced its proposed food label tweaks in late February; here’s a look at what’s in store…
A Fresh Face
Aging eyes aren’t the only reason the current Nutrition Facts label can be hard to read—some of the type is very small. The label is also crowded with information, making it difficult to find what one is interested in knowing. The new label looks cleaner and is much easier on the eyes. It will feature much bigger, bolder type overall, and certain sections will get even more attention due to placement and extra-big type. A similar number of nutrients will be listed, but vitamins A and C are bid adieu (their inclusion on the label would be voluntary) and two common “shortfall” nutrients would be added: vitamin D and potassium.
Emphasis on Calories & Serving Sizes
Updating serving size information to reflect what people actually eat (instead of what they ought to be eating) is a change that will no doubt invite many comments both “for” and “against.” The original standard servings sizes used on the Nutrition Facts label reflected food consumption data from the 1970s and 1980s. There is newer data available that illustrates how off-base some of those original serving sizes are in relation to today’s eaters. (Did anyone ever eat just half a muffin, anyway?)
Packaged food that is usually consumed in one sitting would be labeled as one serving, which makes it easier for consumers to get a grip on portions and the real number of calories in that package. Larger packages that contain multiple servings of a food would have two columns of calorie and nutrition information showing the amounts contained in a serving as well as what’s in the entire package. And speaking of servings, instead of using the word “serving,” the new label would simplify it and just say “Amount in 2/3 cup” for example, instead of making consumers search the label for that information.
One very obvious change is right up top in big letters and numbers: Calories. Giving caloric information such prominence is no accident of course. The FDA cited evolving science as the reason for many of the proposed label changes. The special emphasis on calories and food portions speaks to the nation’s increasing attention to public health problems related to the consumption of excess calories (such as obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes), and is a strategic move to help consumers be proactive in efforts to fight obesity and improve their overall health.
The Sugar Situation
Consumer and health groups are applauding the proposed breakout of “added sugars” under the total “sugars” listing on the label. Currently, an inspection of the ingredient list for any of the myriad sugar synonyms is necessary in order to determine if a product has added sugar—the label just lists total sugars and doesn’t separate out those added to a food.
Sugars naturally present in a food such as fruit (fructose) and milk products (lactose) provide calories as well of course, but they also come alongside the nutrients inherent in the food—not so with added sugars, which just add empty calories. The recent tightening of the World Health Organization’s added sugar recommendations, combined with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines and current recommendations from groups such as the American Heart Association has continued to bring consumer focus on added sugars in the food supply. The products where this change will make the most difference include the obvious candies, baked desserts, sodas, energy drinks and sweetened fruit drinks, but also includes the dairy category, where yogurts, frozen desserts and flavored milks contain varying amounts of added sweeteners.
Of course, industry opinion of this particular labeling change centers on the difficulty of separating the sugars due to the lack of analysis tools. The FDA has suggested that manufacturers put in place additional record-keeping procedures in order to facilitate this process, though whether that proves acceptable or possible remains to be seen. Additionally, there is the question of whether the separation of added sugars from naturally present sugars reinforces the idea among consumers that certain sugars are “better” or “worse” for health than others. After all, the ultimate goal from sugar information on a label is to help consumers more easily decrease their total sugar consumption.
This Isn’t the Last Word
At this point, these labeling changes are proposals. The changes affect all packaged foods except certain meat, poultry and processed egg products, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. Public comments on the proposal will be accepted until June 2. The real costs involved in changing and reprinting food packaging, as well as impassioned arguments about the health merits of some of the proposed changes are likely to be the focus of industry comments. Food rating systems that rely on information provided on the Nutrition Facts label, such as the Guiding Stars nutrition guidance program, will also clearly be affected by any mandated changes. Hang on; this could be a bumpy ride.
Kit Broihier, MS, RD, LD is a member of the Guiding Stars Scientific Advisory Panel. As part of the panel, she works collaboratively on reviewing the latest nutrition guidelines and scientific research as it relates to the Guiding Stars algorithm. The Guiding Stars program is an at-a-glance nutrition guidance program that rates the nutritional quality of food using information from the Nutrition Facts Panel and the ingredients list. Foods are rated and receive a score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 stars. The more nutritional value a food has, the more Guiding Stars it receives. If a food doesn’t receive a star, it means it doesn’t meet the rigorous criteria.
