With consumers just like Morrison in mind, the Food and Drug Administration last November announced a major overhaul of nearly every food label in the supermarket. Such terms as “lite” and “reduced calorie” would be strictly defined, serving sizes would be standardized and complete nutrition information would be mandatory. Final regulations would appear in November 1992; six months later the new labels would be in place. The FDA’s announcement was made in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates meat and poultry products. Together the two agencies would transform the supermarket from a “Tower of Babel,” as Health and Human Services Secretary Louis W. Sullivan called it, to a concert hall of clear and harmonious language.
That was then. Today, as the first deadline approaches, faint sounds can be heard in the distance, and they are anything but harmonious. The FDA and the USDA are at loggerheads; food manufacturers that claimed to welcome the new regulations have been working to weaken them, and nutritionists with glorious dreams of labels reading THIS FOOD IS AWFULLY HIGH IN FAT, HOW ABOUT A NICE PIECE OF FRUIT INSTEAD? are waking up to reality. At the heart of the controversy are two different visions of the ideal food label. The USDA and its constituents in the food industry believe a label should simply state the required information. The FDA and its allies in the health professions dream of a label that actively promotes a healthful diet. All parties are busy pulling and tugging over different proposals. “The new label is an unusual opportunity to help millions of Americans make more informed, healthier food choices,” FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler told an FDA/USDA hearing recently. “We don’t want to end up with the proverbial camel produced by a committee.”
Studies show that more than 70 percent of shoppers read food labels when considering whether to buy a product for the first time, so the stakes are high. Right now the most contentious issue on the table is the question of format: how will nutrition information be presented? The FDA and the food industry each tested a variety of formats with thousands of consumers and came up with separate recommendations; the USDA has proposed its own version. “All the health and consumer organizations are lined up behind the FDA, and the food industry is behind the USDA,” says Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “Ultimately they’ll have to agree on a format, and we don’t know who will win. A guide to the controversy:
It’s easy enough to create a label showing that Brand A frozen lasagna has 15 grams of fat per serving, current food labels already do that. It’s also easy for consumers to compare Brand A with Brand B, which has only 12 grams of fat per serving. So far, so good. In fact, the industry has concluded that labels should be kept just as they are. “We surveyed people who buy groceries for their families, and 63 percent said the current label tells them what they want to know,” says Jeffrey Nedelman, vice president for communications at the Grocery Manufacturers of America, a trade organization. “But the FDA is saying, ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up’.”
Along with many health professionals, the FDA would like to see food labels do more than display grams of nutrients; they want labels that will help people put together a daily diet. In the FDA’s surveys, shoppers were shown a food label and asked to judge whether they would need more or less of a certain nutrient after eating two servings of the product. The current format wasn’t much help in this task; consumers did better when they saw fat content, for instance, expressed as a percentage of the daily recommended amount as well as in absolute terms. “People found it useful to have a percentage listing,” says Alan Levy, head of the FDA’s consumer-research staff. “You have to help them make judgments.”
Making judgments on individual foods is exactly what the USDA does not want the label to do. “The FDA format might be interpreted as a grading system for food,” says Margaret O’K. Glavin, deputy administrator for regulatory programs at the USDA. “You don’t want to give the impression that this is a food to get lots of, or this is a food to avoid.” The USDA has proposed two possible formats. One is simply the current food label with a footnote summing up the U.S. Dietary Guidelines (eat a variety of foods, choose foods low in fat, et cetera). The other presents nutrients in absolute numbers and then gives a range of recommended amounts depending on calorie intake. Next to the fat content, for instance, would appear the figures “53-93 g,” representing 30 percent of calories in a range of 1,600 to 2,800 calories a day. A footnote explains that calorie intake should be based on age, sex, activity level and other factors.
Absolute numbers alone, even with the Dietary Guidelines appended, don’t tell people precisely how a particular food fits into the daily diet. Numerical ranges do, and they are easy for relatively well-informed consumers to use; but critics believe others will find them bewildering-or, worse, tempting. “If you were told you could have 53 to 93 grams of fat a day, what would you choose?” says Liebman. “We’re afraid people will just pick the higher amount.”
There’s more in the new label to puzzle consumers and enrage one or another interest group. Instead of the familiar U.S. RDAs (Recommended Dietary Allowances), shoppers will find nutrients expressed as DVs, or Daily Values. The FDA created the new term in an effort to move away from “recommending” specific amounts of vitamins and minerals. “We wanted the label value to be seen as a reference, not a recommendation,” says Edward Scarbrough, director of the Office of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the FDA. “Consumers will find out their own recommended amount. We’re relying a lot on consumer education.” They sure are. On another battlefront, the FDA and consumer groups are fighting for a strict definition of the word “healthy” when it’s emblazoned across a product. Some 150 “healthy” foods are on the market. “That word is a marketing magnet; it grabs consumers,” says Patricia Morris, director of research at Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, an advocacy group. The GMA’s Nedelman argues that the word is a “dietary approach” and does not need defining.
Underlying the dispute over numbers and percentages is a profound disagreement about nutrition education. The food industry, the government and many dietitians say there are no good foods or bad foods, for all foods can be part of a healthful diet. That viewpoint is certainly good for the food business. But the truth is, some foods are better than others. Scientific evidence is piling up in favor of fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes as the center of the diet, with other foods playing secondary roles. Unfortunately, to explain all that on a food label that also describes the exact impact of a particular brownie on a moderately active woman who is 5 feet 1 and very fond of chocolate does seem beyond the reach of modern design. The new labels are bound to be more informative than the old ones, but whether they will be more useful is anyone’s guess. Next spring, supermarket shoppers may pick up a box of spaghetti and meet the first government-produced camel.
