Gov, manufacturers square off over nutrition labels
nutritional labels for packaged foods are likely to be strongly
resisted by the food industry. Better education about what to eat
would be a more effective way of fighting obestity, manufacturers
argue.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is said to be considering tough new rules on nutritional information for food products, forcing manufacturers to give details according to the pack size rather than portion size. But any such move will be resisted by a food industry which already claims to be overburdened with red tape.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the new measures were being considered as part of Washington's bid to curb the growing levels of obesity in the US. If introduced, they would represent the biggest change in food labeling laws in more than a decade.
The changes are considered necessary primarily because of the changing nature of portion sizes, which have increased steadily over the last 10 years. However, FDA's measurement of what constitutes a typical serving have not been changed in line with this evolution, leading to suggestions that consumers are being confused, rather than aided, by nutrition labeling.
But changes as sweeping as these appear to be will be resisted by the food industry, which would be faced by substantially increased costs. Even though the changes are just a proposal at the moment, one food manufacturers' association has urged FDA to keep the status quo.
The National Food Processors Association (NFPA), which represents most US packaged food producers, told FDA officials that the current nutritional information on food labels was " an excellent source of nutrition information" for consumers, and "include ample information to help them make healthful food choices".
NFPA's director of nutritional policy Robert Earl was speaking at an FDA-organised meeting, 'Exploring the Link Between Weight Management and Food Labels and Packaging'.
"The food industry provides a full range of high quality, nutritious food products to meet consumers' desire for health, nutrition, convenience, taste and value. They include options such as 'low calorie,' 'reduced fat' and 'very low sodium' products, which have been available for decades," he said.
And he warned that change for change's sake could have dire consequences on the food industry's profits. "Any changes to nutrition labeling requirements must be thoroughly researched and consumer-tested, to ensure that they do not make nutrition labeling more difficult for consumers to understand, and thereby less effective.
"Further, such information needs to be linked to both motivational and actionable education messages for consumers, so that they can use nutrition information to create a healthful diet."
He suggested that other actions would be more effective in educating consumers about how much of what food to eat. "It is important to remember that nutrition labeling is designed to provide consumers with information to make sound selections; labels cannot provide consumers with a full nutrition education.
"To help consumers understand how to include a variety of food as part of a healthful lifestyle, education about diet and health is paramount. The focus must be on positive messages about how to eat, not what to eat."
But the food industry is also likely to come under pressure to do more to reduce portion sizes - especially for single-serve products designed for consumption in one sitting and by one person. The paper said that this particular type of product had become increasingly popular as demographics changed, and that most had also increased substantially in size.
