In a blow to consumer in the UK, and possibly in the US, The Food Standards Agency (same as our FDA) has decided to back off their proposed traffic light nutrition labeling on the front of food packages. According to the Daily Mail:

The FSA board yesterday supported a plan that will allow food companies to decide for themselves whether they want to use the colour-based system or a number of alternatives.

The net effect is that families will continue to be confronted by a range of confusing nutrition labelling schemes that are difficult to decipher.

Tesco and other leading industry figures have spent millions of pounds trying to kill off traffic light labelling.They have developed alternative schemes which critics insist only serve to confuse customers.

The decision by the FSA is a major climb down by the Government watchdog. Its support for traffic light labels was central to a wider policy to tackle the problem of rising obesity and ill-health. Read more…

What you need to know:

This is an unfortunate happening that is bound to have a ripple effect on our labeling regulations as well. The FDA is getting more aggressive with the food industry’s misleading health claims. The next step would be to create a standard front of pack labeling system that would serve consumers by not only embellishing positive traits of a product, but also warn about high levels of negative nutrients such as sodium, sugar, and saturated fat.

The “problem” with the traffic lights is that they were scaring off customers. People would see one or two reds and decide not to buy a product. That’s why the industry came up with various multicolor solutions where the color itself is meaningless, for example GDA (guideline daily amount).

What to do at the supermarket:

Until the government regulatory bodies figure out how to save us, let’s help ourselves by learning to read nutrition labels and ingredient lists.

(Thanks Greg Miller for the hat tip)

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

This is a guest blog-post by  Professor Timothy D. Lytton

In my previous post, I suggested that regulation of front-of-package nutrition labels should begin with better enforcement of existing standards. Existing regulations, I argued, already provide adequate tools to clamp down on misleading labels. I focused on the three most common types of front-of-package nutrition labels: (1) those that provide simple quantitative statements, (2) those that rate individual nutrients, and (3) those that present seals of approval. In this post, I suggest how existing standards might be further developed to regulate a fourth type of front-of-package label.

Rating Overall Nutritional Value: Guiding Stars & NuVal

The fourth type of front-of-package nutrition label rates the overall nutritional value of foods. For example, Hannaford Brothers’ Guiding Stars label rates foods on a scale of zero to three stars and the NuVal Nutritional Scoring System rates foods on a scale from one to one hundred.

The FDA could build on its existing regulations concerning the use of “healthy” claims to develop multiple threshold definitions for overall nutritional value, for example providing three threshold definitions that would create a four-point scale: (1) foods below the bottom threshold, (2) foods between the bottom and middle thresholds, (3) foods between the middle and top thresholds, (4) and foods above the top threshold. This could be accomplished by adding further gradation to the current FDA definition of “healthy,” as the agency has already done for some single nutrient claims (for example, “low sodium,” “very low sodium,” and “sodium free.”).

Thus, food ratings in a scheme like Hannaford Brothers’ Guiding Stars would have to meet the corresponding FDA threshold definitions—a food labeled with three stars would have to meet the FDA’s top threshold definition, a food labeled with two stars would have to meet the FDA’s middle threshold definition, and so on. For schemes with a higher level of gradation, like NuVal’s one to one-hundred ranking, the FDA could use the same four-point scale. Foods rated by NuVal in the top quartile (100-76) would have to meet the FDA’s top threshold definition, foods in the NuVal second quartile (75-51) would have to meet the FDAs middle threshold definition, and so on. Calibrating nutrient profile rating schemes to graduated FDA definitions of relative overall nutritional value, using the definition of “healthy” as a starting point, would provide consistency among schemes based on the federal government’s dietary guidelines and health recommendations.

This means of regulation would also allow for variation among schemes in terms of gradation and rankings. Those who design nutrient profile labeling schemes could experiment with greater and lesser levels of gradation, and rankings could vary so long as they met or exceeded minimum FDA threshold levels. The purpose of my proposal to formulate a four-tiered definition of “healthy” is not to create an FDA nutrient profile rating system to displace private-sector rating systems like Guiding Stars or NuVal. The purpose is merely to provide an easily understandable system of minimum thresholds to prevent abuse. Thresholds should be set in such a way as to prevent high ratings for foods of low nutritional value—like Froot Loops—while allowing for variation in different approaches that are consistent with these minimum thresholds. This regulatory approach does not interfere with private sector efforts to develop more complex nutrient rating schemes, so long as those schemes satisfy minimum standards that prevent ratings that are false or misleading.

In a subsequent post, I will discuss why FDA imposition of a uniform, mandatory front-of-package labeling system—as proposed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest—might not be the best regulatory approach.

Timothy D. Lytton is the Albert and Angela Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches regulatory law & policy, constitutional law, administrative law, and tort law. His article “Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols? FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (forthcoming in Health Matrix, vol. 19, no. 2) is available online by clicking here. He is also working on an article about regulation of nutrition standards for school food. For more information, visit his Albany Law School faculty website.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

This is a guest blog-post by  Professor Timothy D. Lytton

At the top of the FDA’s agenda for 2010 is regulating front-of-package nutrition labels.

Proponents of symbols like the Heart Check mark and the Smart Choices logo and rating systems like Guiding Stars and NuVal argue that they offer a quick way to help consumers identify foods that contribute to a healthy diet. Critics allege that the labeling schemes are confusing and misleading and have called for stricter government regulation. The Center for Science and the Public Interest (CSPI) recently released a report advocating that the FDA to develop a uniform, mandatory front-of-package labeling system.

But before the FDA gets into the business of creating its own front-of-package labeling scheme, it should first consider how existing regulations could be used to clamp down on misleading front-of-package labeling information. Better use of existing regulations would be a prudent first step in reigning in the current front-of-package free-for-all.

The FDA has promulgated extensive regulations governing the use of nutrient content claims on food labels—claims describe the level of a nutrient in a food. FDA regulations distinguish several different categories of nutrient content claims, and most front-of-package nutrition labels fall into one of three categories.

1. Simple Quantitative Statements: The Nutrition Highlights Panel

Some front-of-package nutrition labels present nutrient information in the form of simple quantitative statements concerning the amount of one or more nutrients in the food. General Mills’ Nutrition Highlights panel is an example of this type of label.

Existing FDA regulations allow for simple quantitative statements provided that they are accurate.

2. Rating Individual Nutrients: The Traffic Light Label

A second type of front-of-package nutrition label rates the level of individual nutrients on a scale. The British Food Standards Agency (FSA) traffic light label provides an example.

Under FDA regulations, any label claim that employs descriptive terms to characterize the level of a nutrient, such as “low in sodium” or “high in fiber,” may be made only for nutrients for which FDA has established a Daily Value (DV), may be used only if the food meets specified threshold requirements for the nutrient, and may employ only descriptive terms approved by the FDA. For example, a tub of yoghurt labeled “high in calcium” must contain at least twenty percent of the DV of calcium per 225 grams of yoghurt. Any front-of-package label that rates individual nutrients must conform to these strict guidelines. (Note: A daily value for sugar has not been established by the FDA.)

3. Seals of Approval: The Heart Check Mark & The Smart Choices Logo

A third type of front-of-package nutrition label combines analysis of nutrients to suggest that a food satisfies some minimum standard of overall nutritional value, such that it contributes to a healthy diet. The American Heart Association (AHA) Heart Check mark is an example.

The AHA explains on its website that the underlying nutrient criteria for the label are based on the Association’s dietary recommendations which it explains are consistent with federal dietary guidelines and health recommendations. The mark is intended to convey that a food is of high nutritional value by these standards.

Symbols like the Heart Check mark are functionally equivalent to label claims that a food is “healthy.” Under FDA regulations, foods labeled “healthy,” or any derivative of the term such as “healthier” or “healthful,” must not exceed specific thresholds of fat, saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol and must contain requisite amounts of other nutrients such as vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber, depending upon the food. “[T]he purpose of the ‘healthy’ claim,” explains the FDA, “is to highlight those foods that, based on their nutrient levels, are particularly useful in constructing a diet that conforms to current dietary guidelines.” This is precisely what symbols like the Heart Check mark are intended to convey, and this is how consumers understand them. They should, therefore, be required to meet FDA standards for “healthy” claims.

Some front-of-package nutrition labels place symbols of approval on products within a food category that have comparatively better overall nutritional value, although they may be foods of low nutritional value. The symbol is meant to indicate not that a food is healthy in the absolute sense but merely healthier in a relative sense. For example, the Smart Choices logo has appeared on cereals such as Cocoa Krispies and Froot Loops based on their relatively lower sugar content when compared to other highly-sweetened children’s cereals.

FDA regulations prohibit this type of relative healthy claim, explaining that,

“[t]he usefulness of a food labeled ‘healthy’ is not based on how it compares to a similar food, but on how it contributes to achieving a total diet consistent with dietary recommendations.”

Foods that are healthy only in a relative sense do not contribute to a total diet consistent with dietary recommendations and are, therefore, misleading. Under existing FDA regulations, front-of-package labeling schemes that make this type of relative “healthier” claim should be prohibited.

In a subsequent post, I will address how the FDA could further develop its regulations governing the use of healthy claims to regulate more complex front-of-package labels that rate the overall nutritional value of foods.

Timothy D. Lytton is the Albert and Angela Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches regulatory law & policy, constitutional law, administrative law, and tort law. His article “Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols? FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (forthcoming in Health Matrix, vol. 19, no. 2) is available online by clicking here. He is also working on an article about regulation of nutrition standards for school food. For more information, visit his Albany Law School faculty website.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Have you noticed the slough of  “quick glance” nutrition information we’ve been bombarded with this year? Whether it’s the calorie count on menu items at fast food chains, or on products or shelves at the supermarket, many new nutrition graphics, icons, and slogans have entered our vocabulary in 2009. NuVal, Smart Choices, Traffic Lights, and a host of other front of pack labels stormed into shoppers’ lives this year (some earlier).

But did they help us improve our choices?

That’s the billion dollar question, which unfortunately does not have a simple answer. Hannaford, a grocery retailer that introduced Guiding Stars several years ago, claims that products marked with at least one “star” showed an uptick in sales. The system provides a score of zero, one, two, or three stars to each an every product sold in Hannaford supermarkets, based on its nutritional value.

NuVal, on the other hand, scores products from 0-100, and is currently offering nutrition information in less than 1000 supermarkets, mostly in the midwest. Anecdotal evidence shows that people are slightly improving choices.

In New York, where calorie labeling in fast food chains such as McDonald’s and Pizza Hut went into effect last year, no changes in people’s habits were recorded so far. And in the UK, where the Traffic Light System has been in use for several years on packaged foods, the verdict is mixed. One study, published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the British equivalent of the FDA, showed an improvement in people’s choices. But a recent study by Oxford University researchers showed no correlation between the traffic light symbols and people’s choice of a ready to eat sandwich.

What you need to know:

While the quick glance label may give you quick info, the “information” may not always be in your best nutritional interest. You need to understand that many times the front of pack (FOP) nutrition info is just another marketing tool used by food manufacturers and retailers to get you to think that a product is healthy, when in fact it’s not. The best example is Froot Loops, which received a “Smart Choice” accolade by a consortium of manufacturers and fig-leafs scientists from top universities. This for a cereal with 40% sugar by weight, controversial artificial colors, and trans-fat. Luckily the Smart Choices program was nixed several months after it launched.

There is one very important effect that front of pack nutrition labeling has had though. It has caused food manufacturers to take a look at their products and reformulate them to some extent in order to qualify as many as possible as nutritious. Even Froot Loops lost a bit of sugar and gained a bit of fiber. Granted, these are baby steps, but at least they are in the right direction.

What to do at the supermarket:

Since the front of pack labels have not been approved by the FDA and are not really regulated, there is a lot of wiggle room for manufacturers to sell you a “healthy story” rather than a healthy product.

We recommend that you read the nutrition label itself, along with the ingredient list. It will take another moment of your time, but you will know exactly what you’re getting. And if you need advice or help in choosing a product, Fooducate is always here to help.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday we wrote about the preposterous health claims on food and supplement packaging. Apparently they are still insufficient for some manufacturers. They are now suing the FDA to get more lenience in publishing marketing drivel in the guise of scientific recommendations.

We’re happy to learn that in other parts of the world, there is a more consumer friendly approach. Here is what’s happening in Europe:

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is conducting a scientific review of 4,000 health claims made by food producers, including cereal manufacturers. Most of the 60-plus rulings published so far for foods, including pro-biotic drinks and yoghurts, have been dismissive of industry health claims.

The European Commission is also developing a scheme to restrict food manufacturers promoting products on the basis of one or two healthy ingredients if they also contain “high” levels of sugar, saturated fat or salt.

Read more… (UK Times Online)

This means that most cereals will have to remove their misleading health claims, and start concentrating on reducing the vast amounts of sugar present in the most popular breakfast of the Western World.

The FDA would do well to learn from EFSA and UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) that, in this case, have placed consumer interest ahead of that of manufacturers.

Top o’ the morning to you all.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Our body needs salt to function properly, but most of us are getting twice as much as our bodies need. This leads to high blood pressure, hypertension, and other maladies. Many times people are not even aware that their sodium consumption is so high (salt is 40% sodium, 60% chloride).

Here are some common myths regarding salt, thanks to the British Food Standards Agency:

1. Food has no flavour without salt – FALSE
If you’re used to salty foods and like to add generous amounts at every meal, then tasting the same foods without salt may make them seem a bit bland. That’s because your taste buds have become accustomed to the high amount of salt. The good news is that human taste buds can get used to eating less salt in just a few weeks. If you can’t cut the salt sharply start with a gradual decrease in consumption over the course of 6 weeks.

2. You can tell what foods are high in salt because they taste salty – FALSE
Some foods that are high in salt don’t taste very salty. Breakfast cereals and biscuits are a good example. The large amounts of sugar mask the salty taste. Tip for cooks: if you oversalted a dish, add some sugar to balance out the flavor.

3. You need more salt in hot climates because you sweat so much – FALSE
Even in very hot and humid climates our bodies lose only small amounts of salt through sweat.

4. I would know if I had high blood pressure – FALSE
Many people with high blood pressure have no symptoms, so you can’t assume that your blood pressure is normal if you haven’t had it tested. In England, for example, a third of the population has high blood pressure.

5. I don’t add salt to my food, so I must be OK – FALSE
Over 75% of the salt we eat is already in the food we buy, mostly processed food and food consumed outside the home. Examples: burgers, cereals, soups, sauces, TV dinners, etc..

What to do at the supermarket:

If you really want to cut down on your sodium, start reducing processed foods from your diet.

Buying basic ingredients and cooking at home, lets you control the amount of salt added to a dish. If you find home cooking to be too difficult, look at the nutrition panel of prepared foods you buy and opt for low sodium versions (less than 400mg per serving).

If you are over 40 or suffer from high blood pressure, you need to be extra careful because your daily maximum value is 1500mg of sodium or less, vs. 2300mg for the rest of the population.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), the British parallel of the FDA, commissioned a group to recommend an optimal front of pack nutrition labeling system. There are several schemes currently in effect, which causes great confusion amongst shoppers.

The results of the group’s work are not surprising. They recommend that a system based on the FSA developed Traffic Light system be chosen. We agree. Read why… Read more…

Unilever, one of the largest food conglomerates in the world, has recently announced it is adopting a holistic approach to sodium reduction in its global food portfolio.

The European based corporation is the owner of famous US brands such as Colman’s (mustard), Hellmann’s / Best Foods (mayonnaise), Knorr (sauces, stock cubes, ready-meals, meal kits, ready-soups, frozen foods), Lipton, Mazola, Ragú (pasta sauces), Skippy  (peanut butter), Slim Fast (diet products), and Wish-Bone (salad dressing). Unilever is also the world’s largest ice cream manufacturer, owning Ben & Jerry’s, Breyers, Good Humor, and Klondike in the states.

What you need to know:

Salt is composed of sodium and chloride. 1000 mg of salt contain 400mg of sodium. Our bodies need salt but over consumption leads to high blood pressure, hypertension, and other nasty diseases. And boy do we over consume.

Around 75% of the sodium we use is from processed foods. And since most of the food we eat nowadays is processed,  there is no escape.

The modern consumer, pressed for time and looking for convenience, is ingesting almost twice the recommended allowance of sodium per day (2400mg of sodium  is the recommended value).

If manufacturers of processed foods substantially reduce the amount of sodium in their products, it will have an immediate effect on most of the Western world.

Problem is that food tastes better when salty. And since companies don’t want to lose market share by selling unbecoming foods, we have been drowned in salt for decades. No company would like to take the first risky step of sodium reduction, right?

Wrong, Unilever has stepped up.

Though some may say Unilever is taking a foolhardy approach that will hurt its revenues, this is actually a smart move.

Unilever is taking preemptive measures before EU food authorities mandate it. The UK’s Food Standards Authority has already notified manufacturers that by next year (2010) guidelines will be in effect for several food categories. And stricter regulation may follow suite in coming years.

Basically, Unilever is doing something it would have had to do in any case. But by creating a media buzz around it, they gain credibility as a responsible food purveyor and a leader in nutrition.

As an aside, Unilever is also very active in promoting front of package food labeling called “Choices” in Europe. A similar plan, dubbed “Smart Choices”  has been introduced in the US. The idea is to enable consumers to know in a quick glance if a certain food passes a certain nutrition benchmark.

What to do at the supermarket:

The best way to drastically reduce sodium consumption is simply by preparing food at home. If you don’t have time, and do buy canned soups or frozen dinners, opt for the low sodium options. You can always sprinkle a bit more salt on top at home if it is not salty enough for you.

Soup mixes such as Knorr’s can be brutal in terms of sodium content, so watch out. Also, look for salt in strange places like cookies, cereals, and breads. You’d be surprised.

Products with more than 600-800 mg of sodium per serving are to be avoided as much as possible.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

flickr photo: matski_98

1. It has many names – Tartrazine, E102 , FD&C Yellow 5, C.I. 19140, or just plain Yellow 5.

2. Yellow #5 is a synthetic, water soluble, lemon yellow dye used as a food coloring.

3. A partial list of foods including Yellow #5: cotton candy, soft drinks, energy drinks, instant puddings, flavored tortilla chips such as Doritos, breakfast cereals, cake mixes, pastries, pudding powders, soups, sauces, flavored rices such as paella,  powdered drink mixes, sports drinks, ice cream, ice pops, candy, chewing gum, marzipan, jam, jelly, gelatins, marmalade, mustard, horseradish, yogurt, noodles, and pickles.

4. Yellow #5 is one of the cheapest synthetic colors available, and sold all over the world.

5. The more expensive, natural food colorings are turmeric (a spice) , annatto (tropical tree derivative), betacarotene (think carrots’ orange pigments), or malt color.

6. Various levels of allergic reactions and intolerance reactions have been caused by this food coloring, especially among asthmatics and people with aspirin intolerance.

7. Some studies have linked various immunologic responses to tartrazine ingestion, including anxiety, migraines, clinical depression, blurred vision, itching, general weakness, heatwaves, feeling of suffocation, purple skin patches, and sleep disturbance.

8. Despite mounting evidence, The FDA considers Yellow #5 a safe food coloring. Let it be noted that, in the past, the FDA banned the use of other food colorings. This, after research showed them to be carcinogenic.

9. A major study published in the UK in 2007 linked food colorings with hyperactive behavior in children. As a result, the FSA (UK’s FDA) has called manufacturers to voluntarily ban food colorings in their products. Most companies are obliging,  due to consumer pressure and FSA encouragement.

10. Consumer groups in the US, especially the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have called food colorings, and especially Yellow #5, the “Secret Shame” of Food Industry and Regulators. A ban from all foods is their request.

11. Yellow #5 may also be also found in vitamins, antacids, soaps, cosmetics, shampoos, moisturizers, and crayons.

12. Organic foods may also contain Yellow #5 or other food colorings, because the USDA considers a processed food organic if it as at least 95% organic by weight. Since food colorings are used in tiny amounts, a bran muffin with a touch of artificial yellow is still considered organic.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Image via Wikipedia

Over 60% of Americans use nutrition and ingredient labels on foods before making a purchase decision. However, many are confused by the data provided and can’t seem to make the optimal decision. There are several industry initiatives underway in the US and worldwide to simplify this information for customers. Mars International (Snickers anyone?) has announced

From NJ.com:

Mars says it will be the first candy company in the United States to introduce new labeling that will allow consumers to more easily scan how many calories a Snickers may have, or the fat content of a serving of M&Ms.

The labeling standards, known as Guideline Daily Amounts, break down — in percentage terms — a food product’s contribution to daily targets for nutrition, based on a 2,000-calorie a day diet.

Read more…

What you need to know:

The GDA system originated in the UK and is the food industry’s response to the “Traffic Light” labeling by the Food Standards Agency (UK’s FDA). Food manufacturers don’t like the traffic light system because the red lights shown for products high in fat or sugar may actually cause people to not buy it. The GDA system provide information as percentages of daily recommended values which may not seem as harsh. For example, a Snickers bar has 5 grams of saturated fat, a BIG RED LIGHT with the traffic light system, but a less harmful 25% of the recommended daily amount using GDA. Which of the 2 system do you think will make people put the candy back on the shelf?

GDA Sample

What to do at the supermarket:

A candy bar is a candy bar is candy bar. Buy and enjoy sparingly. Don’t think for a minute that it is healthy or nutritious. New labeling schemes such as GDA will help us out more when applied uniformly to all products in the supermarket. That way it will be easier to compare similar products.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription