Panel urges food label rating system
Thursday’s report urges the Food and Drug Administration to adopt new food labeling to clear the confusing clutter off today’s packages and give consumers a fast way to compare choices.
“American shoppers are busy shoppers,” said Ellen Wartella, a Northwestern University psychology professor who chaired the Institute committee that studied food labels at the government’s request. “We want a really simple system that says if you have three marks, that product is healthier than one with two marks.”
It wouldn’t replace the in-depth Nutrition Facts panel that’s now on the back or side of food packages. But few shoppers stop to read or heed that fine print in the middle of the grocery aisle.
That’s why it’s time to put right up front the most important health information, according to the Institute: how many calories per serving – and just how big that serving is, along with stars or some other symbol that quickly shows how the food rates for fat, sodium and added sugar.
“American shoppers are busy shoppers,” said Ellen Wartella, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. Wartella chaired the IOM committee that studied the issue at the request of federal health officials.
“We want a really simple system that says if you have three marks, that product is healthier than one with two marks.”
How to get Americans to eat healthier is a huge problem, with skyrocketing rates for obesity and diet-related diseases. The FDA, which has been working to make the food-labeling system more user-friendly, and called the Institute’s report thoughtful – but wouldn’t say if it would adopt the proposed rating system.
“FDA agrees consumers can benefit from a front-of-pack labeling system that conveys nutrition information in a manner that is simple and consistent with the Nutrition Facts panel,” said spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey.
Even with FDA support, the recommendations likely face an uphill battle from the grocery industry, which is pushing its own “Facts Up Front” rating system. That system would summarize nutritional information on the front of products, according to the industry site, Progressive Grocer. Grocery manufacturers don’t like the idea of ranking one food healthier than a competitor’s.
“We believe the most effective programs are those that trust consumers and not ones that tell consumers what they should and should not eat,” said Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
Michael F. Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, saw that coming a mile away.
“The Institute of Medicine’s proposal is eminently sensible–and will probably be roundly condemned by food manufacturers,” Jacobsen said in a written statement emailed to CBS News. “The IOM’s proposal is far preferable to the voluntary “Facts Up Front” labeling program. The industry’s complex scheme requires consumers to consider the amounts of calories and four to six nutrients, without any numerical score or useful symbols to convey a food’s nutritional value.”
Posts
