Now processed convenience popcorn (already popped in a bag, microwave popcorn, or Jiffy Pop expanding pan-in-a-package – those are a different “product” all together from plain popcorn. I suppose that’s where choosing the lesser of the evils with a label becomes an issue, but only if they are under consideration for purchase.

I am so skeptical of any labeling idea at this point other than what is in it, how much is in it, and full disclosure of all ingredients (not “natural flavors” or a huge list of and/or oils). We’ve already seen how marketers turn low fat, low carb, high fiber, no cholesterol, made with whole grains, multi-grain, etc., into clever attention getters that serve more to get the product in the shopping cart than provide good nutrition advice. I can’t imagine that there is a new system that the marketers can’t turn into a new way to peddle their nutrient depleted, lab-created food products. It’s very much like fraud and con artists always keeping up with the technology in their efforts to scam us and law enforcement always struggling to keep up with the scammers. How is this any different?

Furthermore, as Migraineur says, the labels can also be used to damn perfectly good foods, as when cheese was restricted from advertisement during children’s programign on UK TV because of the fat content. I wouldn’t argue with that if it only affected processed cheese, but it equally applies to lovely English real cheddars, etc. Butter probably fits the same bill.

Better junk food is better–if you are determined to buy it and you eat the same amount you would have before.

The labels were useful to me the other day when choosing popcorn for Casablanca, but one has to wonder at the people in line with “Lite” ice-cream and potato chips and reduced fat cookies–it doesn’t make it health-food guys! And you’ll probably invalidate any reduction in fat or salt, etc. if the claims lead you to consume more than you would have.

It bothers me that some of these systems are proprietary, though – I used to work in banking, and the proprietary credit scores did a lot of damage to people because the owners of the formulas aren’t accountable to anyone. This has the hallmarks of the same kind of disaster.

On the other hand, it does occur to me that there might turn out to be some welcome surprises. Suppose that yogurt does get dinged for being high in sugar and loaded with food additives? Suppose Lean Cuisine gets a lower score because it is deficient in most nutrients except sodium? Maybe the health conscious people who buy that stuff because “it’s good for you” will wise up. One can only hope …

However, practically, i’m left wanting to know what health outcomes the ONQI algorithm is based on. Specifically, the degree of certainty (evidenced-based research) that indicates associations between the specific nutrient intakes and health outcomes – sodium or dietary cholesterol for example – varies signficantly across studies and inviduals. To who is this score to indicate “healthy, or healthier” actually targeted?

I can’t see how the grocers, who receive money for all of Nielsens scanner data would also like him speaking out on this subject without thinking about their revenues.

Always a challenge with source of funds for any research or proposed ratings system I guess.