The Grocery Manufacturers Association, a major food organization, promised last week that it would unveil a new nutritional data labeling system for the front of food packages next year. If that pledge is honored, it will be a major step forward in the nation's effort to reduce problems associated with major health problems like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Trouble is, there is no assurance at this time that the new system will help consumers make more healthy choices when they buy packaged foods.
A major stumbling block is that there is little agreement between regulators and food manufacturers on what the food labels should contain. Public health advocates say the labels should contain information that helps shoppers identify and buy products that promote a healthy diet and eating habits. The Food and Drug Administration agrees. The manufacturers association says only that it is committed to the idea of labels on the front of packaging. It's still mulling the content of those labels. There should be no wiggle room there.
Ideally, nutrition labels should contain information directly related to health. The Institute of Medicine, for example, says that the labels should show calories, saturated fat, trans fat and sodium content. Those are the nutrients most tightly tied to health problems. The manufacturers association has not agreed to that form of labeling. In the past, it has paid lip service to the idea of information useful in making wise and healthy choices, but sidestepped the issue by including long and sometimes confusing information on labels.
Consumers should beware until label standards are created. They should urge the FDA to demand strict, scientifically vetted standards -- and then hold the food industry to them. Without such scrutiny and oversight, the promise of new and useful labeling might come to naught.
After all, many of the food industry's earlier, voluntary efforts to provide more useful nutritional information on labels than what is currently available have not proved helpful. Indeed, one campaign dubbed Smart Choices was stopped because it seemingly gave approval to sugary cereals and frozen meals with high sodium content. Both of those items, of course, have been implicated as major contributors to the nation's increasing health woes.
A useful food labeling system is only one component of what should be a well planned and carefully coordinated national effort to improve nutrition in the United States. The willingness of the food manufacturers association and the Food Marketing Institute, another major trade group, to develop new and more prominent labeling is welcome. Regulators and consumers, however, should not give final authority on what those labels contain to trade groups whose main goal is to protect their members' bottom lines rather than the public's well-being.