Proposals don't consider a product's overall nutritional value, says professor

Former FDA commissioner: Nutrition Facts overhaul doesn’t go far enough

Professor Kessler: 'To the harried shopper hoping to make some healthy choices, this label would offer a quick way of identifying high-calorie, obesity-inducing food'

FDA proposals to overhaul the Nutrition Facts panel on food labels are “strong” and “likely to make an important contribution”, says former FDA commissioner David Kessler, M.D. “But I believe they don't go far enough.”

Among other things [click HERE to read the proposals in full], the FDA proposes including a listing for 'added sugar', making calories more prominent, removing 'calories from fat' and adding levels of vitamin D and potassium.

However, writing in The New England Journal of Medicine (click HERE), Dr Kessler - a professor of pediatrics, epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco - says he would like to see something far more radical on the front of pack.

What the proposals don't do is consider a product's overall nutritional value. There is nothing in the new framework that actively encourages consumers to purchase food rich in the fruits, vegetables, and whole grains that are rightfully considered ‘real food’.

“Instead, the focus is on specific nutrients — an emphasis that gives food companies an incentive to fortify their products so they can make claims such as ‘added fiber’ or to produce sugar-laden foods that can be labeled ‘low fat’.”

The FDA needs a larger strategy to influence the food environment

Beyond refreshing the Nutrition Facts label, he argues, the FDA should look again at front-of-pack labeling: “I believe that the FDA needs a larger strategy to influence the food environment and to support the admonishment based on the Dietary Guidelines to make half your plate fruits and vegetables.”

While it has traditionally been the case that “regulated labeling [is] confined to the side or back of a package”, he says, “There is no reason that acceptance should stand.

“Indeed, the Institute of Medicine and the FDA have worked together in the past to develop some tough front-of-package proposals, but these efforts stalled after a self-protective industry offered a paler voluntary labeling strategy known as Facts Up Front.”

The goal should be to encourage the sale and consumption of products full of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains

A “stronger approach”, claims Dr Kessler, would require that the top three ingredients, the calorie count, and the number of additional ingredients be listed on the front of every package in bold, easy-to-read type.

“To the harried shopper hoping to make some healthy choices, it would offer a quick way of identifying high-calorie, obesity-inducing food and of finding healthier alternatives. Because the number of ingredients in a product often reflects the substitution of chemical additives for the flavor of real food, labels reading “+5 more ingredients” or “+20 more ingredients” would be informative shorthand.”

Whatever form the new regulations ultimately take, says Kessler: “Their goal should be to encourage the sale and consumption of products full of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, rather than those loaded with little more than fat, sugar, and salt.”

An undifferentiated list of nutrients…

Some other groups commenting on the FDA’s proposed changes in the docket (click HERE to read all the comments) also express concerns that the FDA’s proposed label doesn’t attempt to communicate the healthfulness or otherwise of a product, although other commentators stress that this is not its primary purpose.

For example, the Behavioral Science and Regulation Group (a collection of students and fellows at Harvard’s Law, Kennedy, and Business Schools), says: “Below the serving size and calorie information, the proposed label includes an undifferentiated list of nutrients… without providing any indication to consumers of the healthfulness of the nutrient.  

Many consumers may not know without further education whether, for example, insoluble fiber is healthful,” says the group.

Ocean Spray: Listing ‘added sugar’ on Nutrition Facts label will make cranberries look unhealthy

However, the proposal to include a line listing 'added sugar' on the label generates the most debate.

Most commentators welcome the move - including Dr Kessler, who says the FDA should go further and included a daily value for added sugar - but others are not so happy.

Cranberry giant Ocean Spray, for example, says it is “deeply concerned” that listing added sugar would unfairly discriminate against cranberry products - which are nutrient dense, but tart, and typically require some added sugar to improve palatability.

In a comment in the docket (click HERE) on the proposed changes, the firm says: “Under the FDA proposal, cranberry products would be considered ‘unhealthy’ based solely on their added sugar content, ignoring the fruit’s dense nutrients, well-documented health benefits and contribution to fruit intake in the diet.

“Requiring added sugar labeling may mislead consumers to believe that nutrient dense foods such as cranberries with all of their proven health benefits are somehow less nutritious than foods with the same amount of naturally occurring sugar.”

Click HERE to read the FDA proposals. 

Click HERE to read about Facts up Front.   


Related News

Added sugar from soda, energy and sports drinks accounts for a fairly modest 4.9% of total energy in the American diet

What are the biggest contributors of added sugars to the US diet?

CRN, NPA submit comments on FDA's proposed changes to food, supplement labels

CRN, NPA submit comments on FDA's proposed changes to food, supplement labels

Does vitamin D belong on the Nutrition Facts panel?

Does vitamin D belong on the Nutrition Facts panel?

American Diabetes Association: 'While it is true that naturally occurring sugars and added sugars have the same physiological impact, the difference is significant when considering dietary quality'

Should ‘added sugars' be listed on the Nutrition Facts panel?

FDA's current and proposed Nutrition Facts updates, protein content, declared protein, folate, folic acid, added sugar

AHPA to FDA: Clarify protein labeling

Out with the old... Proposed changes to the Nutrition Facts panel would make serving sizes more realistic, highlight added sugars, and make calories much more prominent

Changes to Nutrition Facts panel may have limited impact on consumer perceptions, says Hartman Group

Betty Campbell, EAS Consulting: "You have to ask yourselves and your companies: How will changes in Daily Values, RACCs and serving sizes affect claims you’re making on your product?" Pictured, left to right: the current, proposed and alternate Nutrition Facts panel

Is your product ready for nutrition label changes?

Comments (3)

suzannast - 22 Jul 2014 | 08:21

Sugar white death

We will fight until we have no breath left for sugar! We have to realize that sugar is not a natural substance - it is killing us . It does not matter how many nutrients there are in food if the sugar level is too high it will undermine our health. People have a right to know and make a choice to use sugar or not . We need to make the choice clear on the label. We need to gradually change our pallet , We love sweet food and we need to change. If we do not we will be very sick and bankrupt our medical system. We are addicted to sugar - yes addicted like addicted to caffeine , alcohol and nicotine! We need to go through withdrawal and taste what real food is like - some times bitter some times sour ! And thank God some times sweet - naturally sweet (with fiber and cofactors that minimize the impact) - these foods we limit. We are so focused on sweet we actually hybridize our foods over the years so they get sweeter ( result less antioxidants that are usually bitter by their nature)! Manufacturers need to get busy and change their formulas gradually so people adjust - add good sugar alternatives like erythritol to unrefined sugar - reduce calories . Be ahead of the game - you will then survive.

22-Jul-2014 at 20:21 GMT

K. Grossmann - 21 Jul 2014 | 09:29

Tunnel Vision

What is really sad is that the commenter below doesn't seem to care at all that the kind of labeling that "knocks consumers over the head"-- "will drive hundreds of companies out of business". Hmmm ... wouldn't that drive up unemployment and food costs even more, ultimately forcing the much-worried-about consumer to resort to cheaper, usually more calorie and fat laden foods, to survive. It amazes me that intelligent people can think that ANY kind of labeling is going to stop someone from enjoying their chips, crackers, cake, candy, cheese, cold cuts, and/or convenience foods. Many do not focus on trying to live forever. Many simply do not have time for the luxury of food preparation. They want to enjoy what they like and will choose it no matter what a label says. Stop trying to force what's right for you onto everyone else. Why not suggest moderation? The cost to manufacturers to replace all existing labels and their nutrition software will be high and will be passed on to the consumer. Food is already extremely expensive! Ultimately, those that care to read labels, do, and will. Those that don't, won't, no matter the type size, what words go where, etc. etc.

21-Jul-2014 at 21:29 GMT

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.