"Healthy" labels, unhealthy food

Caitlin Yoshiko Buysse | 4/28/2010, 4:54 a.m.
Despite consumer confusion, federal government slow to regulate misleading labelsCaitlin Yoshiko Buysse ...
Despite consumer confusion, federal government slow to regulate misleading labels AP /J. Scott Applewhite


Despite consumer confusion, federal government slow to regulate misleading labels


Despite consumer confusion, federal government slow to regulate misleading labels

As obesity rates skyrocket, Americans are increasingly concerned with proper nutrition — and are looking to nutrition labels for guidance on what to eat.

But nutrition labels and front-of-the-package advertising are frequently misleading — if not outright deceptive — making healthy eating a tricky task.

The problem has attracted the attention of Michelle Obama, who promptly made them a core piece of her “Let’s Move” campaign against childhood obesity. The first lady has said that she hopes to not only educate families on how to read labels, but also push the food industry to change the confusing and misleading ones.

“Parents shouldn’t need a magnifying glass and a calculator to make healthy choices for their kids,” Obama said in a speech to the Grocery Manufacturers Association earlier this year. “We need you not just to tweak around the edges, but to entirely rethink . . . the information that you provide about these products.”

As it is now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversee nutrition labeling on foods — the USDA covers meat and poultry, while the FDA manages everything else.

 Their policies are intended to guarantee accurate labeling on all food products through a system of pre-market screening, product evaluations and disciplining companies that fail to meet regulation standards. But a new report by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an independent consumer advocacy organization, details many out-of-date policies and spotty records of enforcement.

For instance, the FDA requires a rigorous approval process — involving substantial scientific evidence and a 540-day waiting period — before a food company can advertise health claims about its product. “May help reduce the risk of heart disease” is an example of this type of claim.

But food companies regularly use semantics to easily circumvent FDA policies. Advertising with the phrase, “Helps maintain a healthy heart” requires no FDA approval and can be used regardless of the product’s nutritional content.

Similarly, while the FDA regulates claims about nutrients such as cholesterol, sodium and fiber, no policies exist to monitor claims about ingredients like whole wheat, fruits and vegetables.

As such, juices, cereals and snacks can claim, “contains whole wheat” or “made with real fruit” on the front of their packages irrespective of their actual content.

Sugar is another poorly regulated ingredient. While the FDA imposes regulations on product claims of “sugar-free,” “reduced sugar” and “no added sugar,” none exist for the claim of “low-sugar.”

Moreover, nutrition labels are not required to disclose amounts of added or refined sugars — only natural ones. As a result, many consumers are left in the dark about the actual amount of sugar their soda, candy or cereal contains.

In yet another loophole, food companies can advertise products as “fat-free” or “low-fat,” even if they contain high amounts of sugar — leading the consumer to believe that large quantities can be eaten without gaining weight. Similarly, many companies advertise “trans fat-free” products high in saturated fat.