MPR News Chief Meteorologist Paul Huttner signs off

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER, Associated Press
      

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Uncle Sam wants you to know more about what
you're eating.


      The Food and Drug Administration wants to revise the nutrition
facts label -- that breakdown of fats, salts, sugars and nutrients
on packaging -- to give consumers more useful information and help
fight the national obesity epidemic.


      A proposal is in the works to change several parts of the label,
including more accurate serving sizes, a greater emphasis on
calories and a diminished role in the daily percent values for
substances like fat, sodium and carbohydrates.


      It's the latest attempt to improve the way Americans view food
and make choices about what they eat, and comes in the wake of
major advances in nutrition regulations by the Obama
administration.


      Calorie counts are popping up on menus of chain restaurants
across the country and the longstanding food pyramid was toppled
this year by the U.S. government in favor of a plate that gives a
picture of what a healthy daily diet looks like.


      The struggle to redesign the labels on every box, can and carton
has been in the works since 2003, and some of the changes could be
proposed as soon as this year. 

FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael
Taylor cautions not to expect a grand overhaul, but the revamped
label does mark a shift to create a more useful nutritional
snapshot of foods millions of Americans consume every day.

      "There's no question obesity is a central public health concern
that the nutrition facts panel can play a role in. It's obviously
not a magic wand, but it can be an informative tool," said Taylor.


      For two decades, the black and white label has offered a glance
of nutritional information about what's inside each package,
including calories and grams of fats, cholesterol, protein and
carbohydrates. 


Critics have complained it's confusing and doesn't
offer a simpler way to make a choice about whether it's good for
them -- a judgment the industry wants to leave to consumers.

      The proposed label is likely to produce several changes, said
Taylor.


      For starters, portion sizes should better reflect reality. The
2.5 servings listed on a 20-ounce soda bottle are typically slurped
up by an individual in one sitting rather than split between a
couple and their child. The same goes for a can of soup, where one
serving is often listed as two-fifths of a can.


      The FDA is also likely to find a way to emphasize calories,
which many people rely on for weight control. Other items likely to
disappear or change because they haven't proven useful include
calories from fat and the daily percent value numbers that show how
much what an average diet should include.

      Still, some wish the revisions would go further to list
information about the amount of preservatives in a food and the
degree of processing it has undergone. Health activists say such
changes could help trim waistlines in America.

      The food industry wouldn't like to see many major changes. The
current label is easily recognizable and adaptable to food packages
of different sizes because it's simple, said Regina Hildwine,
director for science, policy, labeling and standards at the Grocery
Manufacturers Association.


      Hildwine says her Washington-based group, which represents 300
top food, beverage companies -- including Nestle, General Mills
Inc., and Coca-Cola Co. -- has provided extensive feedback to the
FDA in the run-up to their proposed rule.


      "I personally talk with FDA on a regular basis to share views
and get information, and sometimes they call me," said Hildwine.


      Advocates believe that the government and industry are too cozy,
and that food companies are reluctant to overhaul food labels for
fear of their profits being hurt.


      "It's against the industry's interest to help the consumer make
better choices, because then they'll sell less food," said Kelly
Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy
and Obesity. "If the population is going to lose weight, it's
going to eat less food, so that means less business for them."


      There's no shortage of ideas on how to improve the label. A
recent contest by the University of California, Berkeley and Good
Magazine yielded 60 colorful new designs.

      A familiar theme popped up: red, yellow and green colors of a
traffic light to indicate whether a food is good or bad. Another
offered thumbs up and thumbs down on nutrients, depending on how
much.

      Manufacturers don't think a stoplight system would work because
most foods have a mix of nutrients and diets are not the same for
everyone, Hildwine said.


      "A color-coded scheme would not be as helpful to consumers as a
fact-based approach," she said.


      The winning design was created by Renee Walker, whose label is
topped by a large blocks of color above the nutrient listing, with
each block representing an ingredient. For example, a jar of peanut
butter would typically have a big box for peanuts, a smaller box
for sugar, and other blocks for other ingredients.


      The FDA has long avoided putting qualitative judgments about
food on labels in favor of a simple listing of macronutrients, said
contest judge and Center for Science in the Public Interest
executive director Michael Jacobson.


      Before the FDA first introduced the nutrition facts label in
1992, choosy Americans puzzled over a tiny printed listing of
ingredients on packages to help determine what to feed their
families.


      As a result, Americans often relied on gut feelings to choose
their diets at a time when the obesity epidemic was taking root.


      Dr. David Kessler served as FDA commissioner during what he
called a "battle royale" over the first label.

      "Every change is a battle with the food industry," said
Kessler. "The food label that we implemented -- did it harm the
food industry in any way? No. In fact, I'm sure they profited from
it."


      Kessler, now a University of California, San Francisco professor
and author, says the label is due for an update.

      Like many experts, he'd like to see the new label address how
much ingredients are processed.


      A pie-chart could, for example, show how much of a jar of tomato
sauce is from actual tomatoes, and how much is sugar, fats, sodium,
water and whatever else may be in it.


      Not that all food processing is bad. Skim milk and lean meat
have been skimmed and trimmed of fat. Frozen vegetables are
typically captured at peak ripeness without introduction of
preservatives or sodium.


      But many highly processed foods are stuffed with unpronounceable
and nutritionally questionable substances. Add fat, sugar and salt,
as processed foods so often do, Kessler said, and you have the
perfect recipe for an American-style obesity epidemic.


      "Twenty years ago, you would have maybe 20 to 30 chews per bite
of food," said Kessler. "Today, food is so highly processed and
so stimulating it goes down in a wash (of saliva), like we're
eating adult baby food."

Gallery

Food pyramid out, 'My Plate' in for healthy eating

Republicans question healthier eating proposals, citing cost, over-regulation

Health

The Food and Drug Administration wants to revise the nutrition
facts label - that breakdown of fats, salts, sugars and nutrients
on packaging - to give consumers more useful information and help
fight the national obesity epidemic.

FDA cooking up helpful new nutrition facts label

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox