I have an editorial with David Ludwig in today’s JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association. NOTE: scroll down to find it). We titled it, “Front-of-package food labels: public health or propaganda?”
We think it’s time for the FDA to consider getting rid of all of them. How’s that for an idea?
Here’s what Forbes thinks about it.
And FoodNavigator.com.
Update, February 25: the Los Angeles Times wrote about it.
The FDA has a new “Dear Industry” letter announcing that it is going to set some rules for those “better-for-you” stickers on the front of junk food packages. Why? “FDA’s intent is to provide standardized, science-based criteria on which FOP [front of package] nutrition labeling must be based.”
What this is about, of course, is all those self-endorsement labels food companies like PepsiCo (Smart Spot), Kraft (Sensible Solution), and many companies collectively (Smart Choices) have been putting on their products.
The companies set up their own nutrition criteria and then applied those criteria to their own products. Surprise! A great many of their products qualified for the “better-for-you” labels.
I’m guessing Smart Choices was the final straw for the FDA. The idea that the Smart Choices check mark could go onto Froot Loops was so astonishing, and the subject of so much ridicule, that the FDA had to act. If nutrition criteria are developed independently, most junk foods would not qualify.
The FDA also says it will be testing how well consumers understand different kinds of package labels. It gives a bunch of examples. Want to know how the FDA is thinking about this? Check out its handy backgrounder, which if nothing else is an excellent introduction to the entire issue of front-of-package labels.
Have a preference about what to use? Write the FDA at this address:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the title of the guidance document: Guidance for Industry: Letter Regarding Point of Purchase Food Labeling.
Addendum, October 22: Here are two additional documents to add to the collection. First, a letter to representative Rosa DeLauro responding to her complaint about the Smart Choices program. Second, is a a summary of the talking points used by Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in her press conference on the new FDA initiatives. My conclusion: the FDA is back on the job!
It’s about time the FDA got back on the job. This is in reaction to the self-endorsements food companies have been making on package labels. The way this works is that companies set up their own nutrition criteria and then apply those criteria to their own products. Guess what. Lots of their products qualify for better-for-you labels. Examples: PepsiCo (Smart Spot) and Kraft (Sensible Solution), and now lots of companies working together (Smart Choices). I think Smart Choices was the final straw for the FDA. The idea that its check could go onto Froot Loops made it clear that the bar had to be set higher. Yes, they are suggesting something voluntary, but if the nutrition criteria are honest enough, junk foods won’t qualify.
A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post explains why the FDA should establish front-of-package nutrition labeling here and now: These countries are doing nutrition labels the right way
Christina Roberto, Alyssa Moran, and Kelly Brownell contrast the “stop signs you’ll see in Mexico, the Nutri-Score system used in France, or the Health Star Ratings in New Zealand” with the current lack of a system like those in the United States.
The only thing standing in the way: the food industry. It favors a label that displays grams or milligrams of key nutrients along with percent Daily Values — much like the Nutrition Facts Labelcurrently on the back or side of packages. ..By using symbols, colors and simple language, front-of-package labels adopted by other countries have educated people about what’s in their food, helped them make healthier choices and even encouraged companies to reduce salt and sugar in their products.
And here’s Fortune on the same topic, especially Nutri-Score.
This makes me think it’s time to review what’s happening in Europe with Nutri-Score. I’ve written about this system previously, most recently here and about Its founder, Serge Hercberg’s, fights with the food industry here.
As a reminder, Nutri-Score accounts for nutrients but also sugar, salt, and saturated fat, in a composite grade A (eat) to E (avoid).
The food industry hates it. For example, an article by authors with ties to industry argues that there is no independent evidence to support the value of Nutri-Score. This induced Hercberg et al to rebut those points.
In response to some of these criticisms, the Nutri-Score team is updating its algorithm to respond to concerns about ultra-processing, among other matters. See: Nutri-Score 2023 Update in Nature Food.
And despite the arguments, support for Nutri-Score is growing. Authors not connected to Nutri-Score recommend it over other types of labeling for adoption by 27 EU nations. See: Establishing an EU-wide front-of-pack nutrition label: Review of options and model-based evaluation. Obesity Reviews, 07 February 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13719
Nutri-Score is currently used in seven European countries. It is backed by the European Public Health Association and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The food industry can complain all it wants, I’m guessing Nutri-Score is here to stay. It may not capture all ultra-processed foods, but it comes close and revising the design like this should help solve that problem.
Center for Science in the Public Interest is campaigning for mandatory front-of-package labeling—like these.
Here’s what you need to know about the campaign:
Guess what! The food industry opposes this kind of labeling. A lot.
Why? Because it might discourage purchase of ultra-processed junk foods. That, after all, is its point.
Really, I can’t make this stuff up.
Thanks to Jim Krieger of HealthyFoodAmerica.org for sending me to Food Navigator-USA: Post launches the first-ever cereal designed to promote sleep.
A cereal meant to be consumed at bedtime? I wanted it for my cereal box collection, and there hasn’t been a good one like this for a long time since the FDA started discouraging ridiculous health claims. I went straight to the Ithaca Walmart and scored a box.
Sweet Dreams, the box tells you, is “part of a healthy sleep routine.”
The front-of-package claims:
- Made with whole grains
- Supports natural melatonin production with zinc, folic acid, and B vitamins
- Excellent source of Vitamin E for neuroprotection
The back-of-package claims:
- Sleep…We want to help you enjoy it. With delicious wholesome ingredients, curated vitamins and minerals, and a specially formulated night-time herbal blend, our dreamy cereal is part of a healthy sleep routine.
- Made with a night-time herbal blend containing a touch of lavender and chamomile
I looked up the website:
For 130 million American adults, a good night’s sleep is elusive. You deserve good sleep, and we want to help you enjoy it! So, we made Sweet Dreams cereal, the first ready-to-eat cereal specially designed to support a good sleep routine and a fresh start to the next day…Available in Blueberry Midnight and Honey Moonglow flavors, make Sweet Dreams cereal a part of your bedtime routine and enable a better sleep cycle while satisfying those nighttime food cravings.
Comment:
I hardly know where to begin: “curated vitamins and minerals”? “Supports natural melatonin production”?
This last is a structure/function claim like those for supplements. It requires only the barest hint of scientific substantiation.
Reader, I ate it.
The cereal is crunchy, with occasionally visible almonds, but is cloyingly sweet (to my taste): A cup of cereal has nearly a tablespoon (13 grams) of added sugar– 24% of a day’s total sugar allowance.
No wonder it’s so sweet. Sugars appear seven times on the ingredient list.
Whole Grain Wheat, Rice, Cane Sugar, Almonds, Whole Grain Rolled Oats, Canola and/or Soybean Oil, Flavor Clusters (Sugar, Corn Syrup, Degermed Corn, Palm Oil, Natural Flavor, Cocoa (processed with alkali)(for color), Blueberry and Carrot Concentrates (for color)), Salt, Honey, Corn Syrup, Barley Malt Extract, Molasses, Tocopherols (Vitamin E) to maintain freshness, Natural Flavor.
Post must be trying to sell more cereal. Eat cereal at night? Well, if you have sleep problems I suppose you can give it a try.
I ate this cereal in the morning. It did not make me feel sleepy.
*******
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
The Food and Drink Federation of Scotland is lobbying the government to stop proposals to restrict promotion of HFSS snacks, ostensibly because of inflation.
The industry would like the government to “help ensure the future success of our vital industry by investing in productivity and supporting food and drink businesses on the journey to Net Zero.”
Spain’s new dietary guidelines recommend limits on meat consumption: a maximum of 3 servings/week of meat, prioritising poultry and rabbit meat and minimising the consumption of processed meat.”
This is a big deal because Spain currently has the highest consumption of red meat in Europe.
Scientists and health professionals for Nutri-Score, the front-of-package labeling scheme that originated in France, are trying to get it accepted throughout the EU.
They are collecting signatures on a petition to the Europen Commission.
In an email, Serge Hercberg, the originator of Nutri-Score, writes
The objective of this Group aims to defend science and public health against lobbies and to remind the EC that Nutri-Score has been the subject of numerous studies following a rigorous scientific process justifying its adoption…The lobbies, totally denying science, have managed in recent months to spread at European level their false arguments through platforms, think tanks, associations, web media, lobbying agencies and events organised by permanent representations of certain states to EU.
He invites experts to support this effort. Information is on the website here.
You can sign on through the contact page. The more, the better he says.
*******
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
Last week I did a post on the FDA’s reorganization. I should have made one other point: the long-standing inadequacy of FDA funding. For decades, Congress has assigned tasks to the FDA but provided inadequate funding to do those tasks adequately (hence 1% of imported foods are inspected). Congress also assigns the funding for specific purposes.
Yes, FDA ought to be doing more, but it is not up to the agency to decide how to deploy its funds.
One more point: For long-standing historical reasons, FDA funding comes from congressional Agriculture committees, even though it is an agency of the Public Health Service. That is one reason why USDA’s food safety programs are funded at so much higher a level than FDA’s.
With that said, the FDA has come out with some recent initiatives of interest.
I. Front-of-Package labels. The FDA is proposing to research a front-of-package symbol: “an easy-to-understand, standardized system that is 1) mandatory, 2) nutrient-specific, 3) includes calories, and is 4) interpretive with respect to the levels of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat per serving.”
It is doing this in response to a petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
The comments that have come in so far are here.
It is examining the use of front-of-pack symbols in other countries.
It also plans to conduct research on consumer understanding of multiple designs. Here are the prototype packages on which the designs will be tested.
None of these is likely to be as effective as the ones used in other countries.
Here is one of the better options, in my opinion.
To file comments, go here. It’s important to do this because the Consumer Brand Association (formerly the Grocery Manufacturers Association) and other industry groups are unlikely to accept any labeling scheme that might discourage you from buying a product.
II. Qualified health claim: cocoa flavanols. The FDA has approved a qualified health claim for cocoa flavanols and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.
This was in response to a petition from the Swiss chocolate company, Barry Callebaut.
Here’s what the FDA will allow. Yes, this is absurd (look at what the FDA has to go through to get to this), but companies must think statements like this will sell their products.
III. GRAS panels. The FDA has issued final guidance on best practices for panels deciding which ingredients can be Generally Recognized as Safe.
This lays out the guidelines for
A lot of this is headache-inducing. FDA rulemaking takes forever. Can’t wait to see how all this turns out.
*******
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
The Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI) published a report, Spotlight on Lobbying 2022 just in time for Christmas. I am just getting to it.
ATNI has been commissioned to benchmark the world’s 25 largest F&B companies’ lobbying-related commitments, management systems, and disclosure against the Responsible Lobbying Framework (RLF). The RLF was developed to help organizations adopt corporate practices that ensure their lobbying activities are legitimate, transparent, consistent, and accountable, while providing the opportunity for other, more resource-constrained groups, to lobby in the public
interest.
Note that this report focuses on corporate promises and internal practices. It does not evaluate what the companies are actually doing to influence nutrition policy.
The results? No surprise, “current practice is far from the standard set in the RLF.”
Of course it is. Why would companies want to stop lobbying when it is so effective in protecting their profits.
The report mentions the major issues:
I hope its next lobbying report will document how these companies are fighting every one of these public health initiatives.
********
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
This session is on Practicing Food Studies. It will be at 5;00 p.m. Details to come.