Take a look at Time online, with a good writeup of the confusing front-of-pack labels that shoppers for healthy food are seeing in supermarkets these days. The article covers the following systems, with commentary on pros and cons of each.

What to do at the supermarket:

There is no simple and quick answer to the question of what foods to choose. It is always an optimization exercise with the following parameters: nutrition, price, taste, and convenience. But no matter where you draw your family’s line, you should try to base your decisions on a complete information set.

In that respect, many front of pack nutrition markings are doing you a disservice. So spend another minute or two to read the ingredient list and nutrition facts panel. And if you have any questions, let us know. Fooducate is here for you.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

The FDA is asking YOU for ideas on how to improve product nutrition information on front of package (FOP) and shelves (not the nutrition panel). The goal is to enhance the

usefulness to consumers of point-of-purchase nutrition information,
such as information on the principal display panel of food products
(``front-of-pack'' labeling) or on shelf tags in retail stores. In
particular, FDA is interested in the following: Data and information on
the extent to which consumers notice, use, and understand nutrition
symbols on front-of-pack labeling of food packages or on shelf tags in
retail stores; research assessing and comparing the effectiveness of
particular possible approaches to front-of-pack labeling;
graphic design, marketing, and advertising data and
information that can inform and guide the development of better point-
of-purchase nutrition information; and the extent to which point-of-
purchase nutrition information may affect decisions by food
manufacturers to reformulate products. The goal of this front-of-pack
nutrition labeling effort is to maximize the number of consumers who
readily notice, understand, and use point-of-purchase information to
make more nutritious choices for themselves and their families.

Be sure that the big interest groups, food manufacturers and retailer, are going to provide their input. You, as a consumer, should ask for the things you’d like to see.

We’ve seen an explosion of FOP nutrition information in the past few years, with an interesting evolution that has mostly added to the public’s confusion. At first, individual corporations created checkmarks for their independent brands. Then they joined forces to create a uniform logo, based on a combination of science and marketing scoring. That program, Smart Choices, was nixed after outrage by consumers and a letter from the FDA. Other systems, more reputable and independent, have also been developed, but none has managed to reach a critical mass of endorsers or use.

So what improvements should you ask for?

Here’s our list of top 3:

1. FDA to set the standard for what receives a healthy score, not a consortium of food companies.

2. The whole truth. Too many times, consumers are lured by a “LOW FAT” product, that has been pumped so full of chemicals, fillers, and sugar, that it is actually worse than the full fat original.

3. Re-evaluation of permissible nutrition information presented to the consumer on the front of pack – for example silly and unquantifiable claims such as “all natural”, presentation of fruit when barely non are present in the product, and in general any information that may mislead a consumer to think a product is healthier than it really is.

At the end of the day, a consumer may choose to eat whatever product she or he wants. That includes candies, gallons of soft drinks, and TV dinners. But the consumer should be allowed to make this choice based on a full information set, not warped proof that something is healthy when it is not.

In short, the FDA should use front of pack labeling regulation to increase transparency of a product’s true nature.

And while it’s at it, perhaps the FDA will listen to some of our other suggestions for improvements in the nutrition facts panel and ingredient list.

What to do at the supermarket:

Right now, we the consumers need to be the vigilant sleuths. We must carefully read the nutrition facts panel and ingredient lists, and absolutely ignore any marketing claims disguised as health advice.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

This is a guest blog-post by  Professor Timothy D. Lytton

In my previous posts I have proposed that the FDA regulate front-of-package nutrition labels by better enforcement of existing regulations and by setting minimum standards for labels that rate the overall nutritional value of foods. By contrast, the Center for Science and the Public Interest as well as the Fooducate Blog have advocated that the FDA develop and impose on the food industry “a simple, uniform science-based system [that] would bring consistent and reliable information to the marketplace and help consumers choose more healthful diets.”

However, the high level of complexity involved in designing nutritional rating systems gives rise to two reasons to prefer a regulatory approach that merely sets minimum-standards.

First, there is little reason to suppose that government policymakers will be able to create a system that is superior to those developed by research scientists in academia and industry. Disagreement among experts in industry and academia as to the best approach to nutrient profiling—even after millions of dollars of investment and years of research—is significant and ongoing. By contrast, merely setting minimum standards is a less complex task that is more likely to generate consensus among experts, who do agree on many basic principles of nutrition. Setting minimum standards is a common regulatory tool well within the expertise of the FDA and likely to elicit few complaints about the agency acting beyond the powers delegated to it by Congress.

Second, allowing for experimentation and competition among private-sector groups is likely to advance knowledge in the area of nutrient profiling and food labeling more effectively than the development and imposition of a single, centralized government scheme. Minimum government standards will create space for genuine experimentation and competition aimed at advancing knowledge while eliminating merely profit-driven research and the use of front-of-package nutrition labels as just another marketing strategy. There is also reason to believe that market incentives, under certain circumstances, will produce high quality scientific information. While allegations of conflict of interest and “junk-science” surround manufacturer-sponsored front-of-package labels, such as Smart Choices, the same is not true of shelf labels developed by or for retail stores. The Guiding Stars and NuVal labels have been singled out for the scientific integrity of their ratings, even among critics of nutrient profiling generally. One reason may be that retail supermarkets are less interested in selling any particular type or brand of food, including their own their own store brands, than in attracting consumers into their stores. Whereas manufacturers have an incentive to adopt nutrient profiling schemes that favor their products—regardless of the product’s nutritional value—retail supermarkets draw customers into their stores by offering them reliable nutrient profile labels that, for some consumers, enhance their shopping experience.

The most effective role for government in the regulation of front-of-package nutrition labels is not to supplant private sector experimentation and competition but rather to ensure that it is not corrupted by unscrupulous companies willing to put profits ahead of scientific integrity.

Timothy D. Lytton is the Albert and Angela Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches regulatory law & policy, constitutional law, administrative law, and tort law. His article “Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols? FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (forthcoming in Health Matrix, vol. 19, no. 2) is available online by clicking here. He is also working on an article about regulation of nutrition standards for school food. For more information, visit his Albany Law School faculty website.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate (It’s Free)

This is a guest blog-post by  Professor Timothy D. Lytton

In my previous post, I suggested that regulation of front-of-package nutrition labels should begin with better enforcement of existing standards. Existing regulations, I argued, already provide adequate tools to clamp down on misleading labels. I focused on the three most common types of front-of-package nutrition labels: (1) those that provide simple quantitative statements, (2) those that rate individual nutrients, and (3) those that present seals of approval. In this post, I suggest how existing standards might be further developed to regulate a fourth type of front-of-package label.

Rating Overall Nutritional Value: Guiding Stars & NuVal

The fourth type of front-of-package nutrition label rates the overall nutritional value of foods. For example, Hannaford Brothers’ Guiding Stars label rates foods on a scale of zero to three stars and the NuVal Nutritional Scoring System rates foods on a scale from one to one hundred.

The FDA could build on its existing regulations concerning the use of “healthy” claims to develop multiple threshold definitions for overall nutritional value, for example providing three threshold definitions that would create a four-point scale: (1) foods below the bottom threshold, (2) foods between the bottom and middle thresholds, (3) foods between the middle and top thresholds, (4) and foods above the top threshold. This could be accomplished by adding further gradation to the current FDA definition of “healthy,” as the agency has already done for some single nutrient claims (for example, “low sodium,” “very low sodium,” and “sodium free.”).

Thus, food ratings in a scheme like Hannaford Brothers’ Guiding Stars would have to meet the corresponding FDA threshold definitions—a food labeled with three stars would have to meet the FDA’s top threshold definition, a food labeled with two stars would have to meet the FDA’s middle threshold definition, and so on. For schemes with a higher level of gradation, like NuVal’s one to one-hundred ranking, the FDA could use the same four-point scale. Foods rated by NuVal in the top quartile (100-76) would have to meet the FDA’s top threshold definition, foods in the NuVal second quartile (75-51) would have to meet the FDAs middle threshold definition, and so on. Calibrating nutrient profile rating schemes to graduated FDA definitions of relative overall nutritional value, using the definition of “healthy” as a starting point, would provide consistency among schemes based on the federal government’s dietary guidelines and health recommendations.

This means of regulation would also allow for variation among schemes in terms of gradation and rankings. Those who design nutrient profile labeling schemes could experiment with greater and lesser levels of gradation, and rankings could vary so long as they met or exceeded minimum FDA threshold levels. The purpose of my proposal to formulate a four-tiered definition of “healthy” is not to create an FDA nutrient profile rating system to displace private-sector rating systems like Guiding Stars or NuVal. The purpose is merely to provide an easily understandable system of minimum thresholds to prevent abuse. Thresholds should be set in such a way as to prevent high ratings for foods of low nutritional value—like Froot Loops—while allowing for variation in different approaches that are consistent with these minimum thresholds. This regulatory approach does not interfere with private sector efforts to develop more complex nutrient rating schemes, so long as those schemes satisfy minimum standards that prevent ratings that are false or misleading.

In a subsequent post, I will discuss why FDA imposition of a uniform, mandatory front-of-package labeling system—as proposed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest—might not be the best regulatory approach.

Timothy D. Lytton is the Albert and Angela Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches regulatory law & policy, constitutional law, administrative law, and tort law. His article “Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols? FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (forthcoming in Health Matrix, vol. 19, no. 2) is available online by clicking here. He is also working on an article about regulation of nutrition standards for school food. For more information, visit his Albany Law School faculty website.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

This is a guest blog-post by  Professor Timothy D. Lytton

At the top of the FDA’s agenda for 2010 is regulating front-of-package nutrition labels.

Proponents of symbols like the Heart Check mark and the Smart Choices logo and rating systems like Guiding Stars and NuVal argue that they offer a quick way to help consumers identify foods that contribute to a healthy diet. Critics allege that the labeling schemes are confusing and misleading and have called for stricter government regulation. The Center for Science and the Public Interest (CSPI) recently released a report advocating that the FDA to develop a uniform, mandatory front-of-package labeling system.

But before the FDA gets into the business of creating its own front-of-package labeling scheme, it should first consider how existing regulations could be used to clamp down on misleading front-of-package labeling information. Better use of existing regulations would be a prudent first step in reigning in the current front-of-package free-for-all.

The FDA has promulgated extensive regulations governing the use of nutrient content claims on food labels—claims describe the level of a nutrient in a food. FDA regulations distinguish several different categories of nutrient content claims, and most front-of-package nutrition labels fall into one of three categories.

1. Simple Quantitative Statements: The Nutrition Highlights Panel

Some front-of-package nutrition labels present nutrient information in the form of simple quantitative statements concerning the amount of one or more nutrients in the food. General Mills’ Nutrition Highlights panel is an example of this type of label.

Existing FDA regulations allow for simple quantitative statements provided that they are accurate.

2. Rating Individual Nutrients: The Traffic Light Label

A second type of front-of-package nutrition label rates the level of individual nutrients on a scale. The British Food Standards Agency (FSA) traffic light label provides an example.

Under FDA regulations, any label claim that employs descriptive terms to characterize the level of a nutrient, such as “low in sodium” or “high in fiber,” may be made only for nutrients for which FDA has established a Daily Value (DV), may be used only if the food meets specified threshold requirements for the nutrient, and may employ only descriptive terms approved by the FDA. For example, a tub of yoghurt labeled “high in calcium” must contain at least twenty percent of the DV of calcium per 225 grams of yoghurt. Any front-of-package label that rates individual nutrients must conform to these strict guidelines. (Note: A daily value for sugar has not been established by the FDA.)

3. Seals of Approval: The Heart Check Mark & The Smart Choices Logo

A third type of front-of-package nutrition label combines analysis of nutrients to suggest that a food satisfies some minimum standard of overall nutritional value, such that it contributes to a healthy diet. The American Heart Association (AHA) Heart Check mark is an example.

The AHA explains on its website that the underlying nutrient criteria for the label are based on the Association’s dietary recommendations which it explains are consistent with federal dietary guidelines and health recommendations. The mark is intended to convey that a food is of high nutritional value by these standards.

Symbols like the Heart Check mark are functionally equivalent to label claims that a food is “healthy.” Under FDA regulations, foods labeled “healthy,” or any derivative of the term such as “healthier” or “healthful,” must not exceed specific thresholds of fat, saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol and must contain requisite amounts of other nutrients such as vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber, depending upon the food. “[T]he purpose of the ‘healthy’ claim,” explains the FDA, “is to highlight those foods that, based on their nutrient levels, are particularly useful in constructing a diet that conforms to current dietary guidelines.” This is precisely what symbols like the Heart Check mark are intended to convey, and this is how consumers understand them. They should, therefore, be required to meet FDA standards for “healthy” claims.

Some front-of-package nutrition labels place symbols of approval on products within a food category that have comparatively better overall nutritional value, although they may be foods of low nutritional value. The symbol is meant to indicate not that a food is healthy in the absolute sense but merely healthier in a relative sense. For example, the Smart Choices logo has appeared on cereals such as Cocoa Krispies and Froot Loops based on their relatively lower sugar content when compared to other highly-sweetened children’s cereals.

FDA regulations prohibit this type of relative healthy claim, explaining that,

“[t]he usefulness of a food labeled ‘healthy’ is not based on how it compares to a similar food, but on how it contributes to achieving a total diet consistent with dietary recommendations.”

Foods that are healthy only in a relative sense do not contribute to a total diet consistent with dietary recommendations and are, therefore, misleading. Under existing FDA regulations, front-of-package labeling schemes that make this type of relative “healthier” claim should be prohibited.

In a subsequent post, I will address how the FDA could further develop its regulations governing the use of healthy claims to regulate more complex front-of-package labels that rate the overall nutritional value of foods.

Timothy D. Lytton is the Albert and Angela Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches regulatory law & policy, constitutional law, administrative law, and tort law. His article “Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols? FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (forthcoming in Health Matrix, vol. 19, no. 2) is available online by clicking here. He is also working on an article about regulation of nutrition standards for school food. For more information, visit his Albany Law School faculty website.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Image via Wikipedia

The first decade of the millennium brought both good and bad developments in the food and nutrition space. Mostly, this decade was a wake up call for many families and individuals that they cannot blindly trust government and market powers to provide the healthy food that they deserve.

2001 – Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, by investigative reporter Eric Schlosser, is published. People begin to understand that there is a very high price society is paying for cheap food.

2003 – The FDA announces plans to permit food manufacturers to make “qualified health claims”. Industry can now rely on “Some scientific evidence” or “Very limited and preliminary scientific research” to make a health claim. Opponents criticize it as opening the door to ill-founded claims. Advocates believe it will make more information available to the public. We shoppers get more confusing marketing messages than ever.

2003 – the low carb diet craze is launched with the publication of the South Beach Diet. The trend peaked in 2004 and pretty much died off by the end of 2005.

2004 – Morgan Spurlock’s Supersize Me, a documentary film following the health of its director eating only McDonald’s for an entire month, is released and meets with mixed reactions. Fast food chains duck for cover.

2004 – Passage of the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. Requires labeling of any food that contains one or more of: peanuts, soybeans, cow’s milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, and wheat. People suffering from allergies still confused over statements such as “produced in a factory which also processes peanuts”.

2005 – Blogging goes mainstream, and people find new and useful sources of information on any subject, including food, nutrition, and health.

2006 – Wal-Mart joins the Organic Food bandwagon, signaling the mass acceptance of a once hippy movement.

2006 – Trans-fat is proclaimed the new evil. It’s labeling is required on all packaged foods. As a result, many manufacturers reformulate their products.

2007 – Author, professor, and food lover Michael Pollan publishes The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and continues the theme of Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation. The result is a mass yearning for organic, sustainable fare. A follow-up book in 2008, In Defense of Food, argues against the “nutritionism” and suggests a creation of a food culture where  we “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

2008 – COOL (country of origin) Labeling goes into effect. fresh beef, pork, and lamb. After repeated debilitation and stakeholder pressures, the law that was enacted in the 2002 Farm Bill finally went into effect on Oct 1, 2008, and even then with many loopholes.

2008-9 – Front of Pack Nutrition Labeling becomes a food industry pastime, with over 15 different systems competing who will become the dominant player. In late 2009, the FDA decides to start thinking of maybe possibly beginning a process of evaluation which could eventually lead to government regulation in this area. While Guiding Stars and NuVal still survive, Smart Choices is nixed.

2009 – In January, a salmonella outbreak caused by a dirty peanut butter processing plant in Georgia, leads to one of the largest recalls of products in the history of supermarkets. Hundreds of products are recalled after the unnecessary deaths of innocent peanut butter aficionados.

2009 – As the recession takes hold, many  turn to comfort foods. Although home cooked meals are generally healthier and cheaper than restaurant fare, McDonalds’s stock has never done better. Coupon usage increases for the first time since 1992.

Here’s a graph of McDonald’s (red)  vs. Whole Foods Market (blue) stock performance over the course of the decade. How’s your (nutrition) performance changed over the last 10 years?

Note #1 : Apologies for not mentioning any TV shows, of which surely some deserve mention, as we have not watched TV since the late 1990′s. Perhaps a fastidious reader would like to add these in the comments section.

Note #2:  many good ideas for this post appeared in Delish.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Have you noticed the slough of  “quick glance” nutrition information we’ve been bombarded with this year? Whether it’s the calorie count on menu items at fast food chains, or on products or shelves at the supermarket, many new nutrition graphics, icons, and slogans have entered our vocabulary in 2009. NuVal, Smart Choices, Traffic Lights, and a host of other front of pack labels stormed into shoppers’ lives this year (some earlier).

But did they help us improve our choices?

That’s the billion dollar question, which unfortunately does not have a simple answer. Hannaford, a grocery retailer that introduced Guiding Stars several years ago, claims that products marked with at least one “star” showed an uptick in sales. The system provides a score of zero, one, two, or three stars to each an every product sold in Hannaford supermarkets, based on its nutritional value.

NuVal, on the other hand, scores products from 0-100, and is currently offering nutrition information in less than 1000 supermarkets, mostly in the midwest. Anecdotal evidence shows that people are slightly improving choices.

In New York, where calorie labeling in fast food chains such as McDonald’s and Pizza Hut went into effect last year, no changes in people’s habits were recorded so far. And in the UK, where the Traffic Light System has been in use for several years on packaged foods, the verdict is mixed. One study, published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the British equivalent of the FDA, showed an improvement in people’s choices. But a recent study by Oxford University researchers showed no correlation between the traffic light symbols and people’s choice of a ready to eat sandwich.

What you need to know:

While the quick glance label may give you quick info, the “information” may not always be in your best nutritional interest. You need to understand that many times the front of pack (FOP) nutrition info is just another marketing tool used by food manufacturers and retailers to get you to think that a product is healthy, when in fact it’s not. The best example is Froot Loops, which received a “Smart Choice” accolade by a consortium of manufacturers and fig-leafs scientists from top universities. This for a cereal with 40% sugar by weight, controversial artificial colors, and trans-fat. Luckily the Smart Choices program was nixed several months after it launched.

There is one very important effect that front of pack nutrition labeling has had though. It has caused food manufacturers to take a look at their products and reformulate them to some extent in order to qualify as many as possible as nutritious. Even Froot Loops lost a bit of sugar and gained a bit of fiber. Granted, these are baby steps, but at least they are in the right direction.

What to do at the supermarket:

Since the front of pack labels have not been approved by the FDA and are not really regulated, there is a lot of wiggle room for manufacturers to sell you a “healthy story” rather than a healthy product.

We recommend that you read the nutrition label itself, along with the ingredient list. It will take another moment of your time, but you will know exactly what you’re getting. And if you need advice or help in choosing a product, Fooducate is always here to help.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Nuval, the nutrition rating system that scores product from 0-100, announced this week the addition of a fourth supermarket chain as a partner – United Supermarkets, LLC of Lubbock, Texas, which operates 50 stores under the United Supermarkets, Market Street, and Amigos United names. Only 6 of the stores will be launching NuVal initially, beginning in March 2010. The rest will roll out during the remainder of 2010.

NuVal, originall called ONQI,  is a nutrition rating system developed by Dr. David Katz and other prominent scientists and nutrition experts in order to help shoppers make healthier choices at the supermarket. We explained the system and compared it to the (R.I.P) Smart Choices Program here.

NuVal is currently available at Price Chopper, Hy-Vee, and Meijer supermarkets in 19 states and over 500 supermarkets, according to company.

Coinciding with the PR, the NuVal website has been redesigned and it also includes a game called “Nutrition by the Numbers” where players have to rank 3 products by their NuVal score.

What you need to know:

This is a a small win for the NuVal licensing company, that had expected to be in thousands of supermarkets by this time when the program was announced last year. Nuval has yet to gain entry into one of the larger chains such as Kroeger, Publix, or Safeway.

We recently asked a NuVal board member why this is, but got a general answer that there is “a lot of work in progress.”

Here are a few thoughts on why NuVal is not as far ahead as it expected:

1. NuVal is not sponsored by food manufacturers, as Smart Choices was, and therefore its scores do not show on product packages. They appear on shelf tags together with the prices. Our sources tell us that this is causing a logistical nightmare as products are arranged on different shelves, prices change, and employees are not always aware of the new labeling.

2. NuVal’s competitors, especially Smart Choices and Guiding Stars, as well as individual efforts by some chains, have divided the industry, making it very hard for any player to gain substantially.

3. The recent inquiries by the FDA into “front of pack” nutrition labels may also have supermarkets sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see if a federally mandated standard will render existing systems useless or illegal.

4. Lastly, some supermarkets may find themselves in a conflict of interest. On one hand, providing consumers with more nutrition information is a good thing to do and builds loyalty. On the other, it may create a loss in revenue because customers will now buy less of the profitable junk foods and beverages. These profit-centers occupy substantial real estate in all modern supermarkets.

What to do at the supermarket:

Whether your local supermarket is participating in a nutrition labeling program or not, you can still make sound choices. The best advice is to buy minimally processed foods, with short, understandable ingredient lists. Make sure you get plenty of fruits and vegetables, limit your snacks to a very few, and opt to drink tap water instead of soft drinks.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Update [Wednesday morning 10/27]: General Mills has thrown in the towel as well. Just last week, at the annual ADA conference, Susan Crocket, PhD, RD the company’s Senior VP of Health and Nutrition defended the program’s integrity with deep fervor.

Update [Monday night 10/26] : Unilever just announced that it will be phasing out the Smart Choices logo from its food and beverage products now that the Food and Drug Administration plans to standardize criteria for food nutrition labels.

The Smart Choices Program will cease Front of Pack food labeling effective immediately. Bowing to pressure from the public as well as warning letters from the FDA and Connecticut’s Attorney General, the industry led organization announced

it will voluntarily postpone active operations and not encourage wider use of the logo at this time by either new or currently enrolled companies. more…

The American Society for Nutrition, which served as the “objective, scientific” cover for the nutrition criteria set by the food industry, sent out a letter to its members:

ASN commends the FDA on its announcement of intent to develop standardized criteria on which front-of-pack nutrition and shelf labeling could be based. In addition, ASN fully supports the decision of the Smart Choices Program Board of Directors to postpone their active operations as FDA works to address both front-of-pack and on shelf labeling. “ASN will continue to provide nutrition science expertise within the dialogue on front-of-pack labeling in order to best serve the interests of the health of Americans,” said ASN President Jim Hill in a statement to media.

Interestingly, the statement by the Smart Choices Board of Directors does not appear on their website homepage. It was also issued late Friday afternoon, a time slot usually reserved for bad news by PR professionals, assuming the upcoming weekend will help soften the blow.

What you need to know:

This is a great piece of news to kick off the weekend.

Despite explanations by top nutrition experts and as to why the Smart Choices program was scientifically sound, anyone with a bit of common sense will tell you that Froot Loops cereal is not a “Smart Choice”.

What to do at the supermarket:

Make your own Smart Choice by learning to read nutrition facts panels and ingredient lists. Here’s an easy piece of advice to follow: in many cases, the shorter the ingredient list, the better the product.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

In perfect timing with ADA’s nutrition and food conference, The FDA issued a “letter to manufacturers” on Monday, informing them (and us) that it will begin an investigation into Front of Pack (FOP) nutrition labels.

Here are some interesting tidbits from the regulatory body in charge of what is mentioned on the food labels of virtually every product we buy at the supermarket.

FDA recognizes that point of purchase labeling can be a way of promoting informed food choices and helping consumers construct healthier diets in accordance with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

… If voluntary action by the food industry does not result in a common, credible approach to FOP and shelf labeling, we will consider using our regulatory tools toward that end.

Hopefully the Smart Choices / Froot Loops fiasco will lead to some good – a standardized, objective, and trustworthy front of pack label that consumers will be able to rely on. That way you wont’t be buying a cereal whose first ingredient is sugar, contains trans fat, and has 4 different kinds of artificial colorings to it thinking it is a healthy choice for your child.

What to do at the supermarket:

Don’t hold your breath until FDA regulations kick in. The government is slow to move… In the meantime, don’t gather any nutrition information from health claims or nutrition labels on the front of a product package. The only information relevant is the nutrition facts panel.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com