New food labels would highlight calories and sugar

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/food-labels-highlight-calories-sugar-050243156--politics.html

Those "Nutrition Facts" labels on nearly every food package in grocery stores are getting a new look.

Calories would be in larger, bolder type, and consumers would know whether foods have added sugars under label changes proposed by the Obama administration Thursday. Serving sizes would be updated to make them more realistic. A serving of ice cream, for example, would double to a full cup, closer to what people actually eat.

The proposed overhaul comes as nutritionists' views have shifted. While fat was the focus two decades ago when the labels first were created, there is now more concern about how many calories we eat. And serving sizes have long been misleading, with many single-serving packages listing multiple servings, so their calorie count is lower.

The idea isn't that people should eat more; it's that they should understand how many calories are in what they are actually eating. The Food and Drug Administration says that by law, serving sizes must be based on actual consumption, not ideal consumption.

"Our guiding principle here is very simple, that you as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an item off the shelf and be able to tell whether it's good for your family," said first lady Michelle Obama, who joined the Food and Drug Administration in announcing the proposed changes at the White House.

Mrs. Obama made the announcement as part of her Let's Move initiative to combat child obesity, which is celebrating its fourth anniversary. On Tuesday, she announced new Agriculture Department rules that would reduce marketing of less-healthful foods in schools.

The first lady and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said one of the aims of the new labels is to make them less confusing for harried parents shopping at the grocery store. Hamburg called the revision "a more user-friendly version" of the current label.

The new labels are probably several years away. The FDA will take comments on the proposal for 90 days, and a final rule could take another year. Once it's final, the agency has proposed giving industry two years to comply.

The FDA projects food companies will have to pay around $2 billion as they change the labels. Companies have resisted some of the changes in the past, including listing added sugars on the label, but the industry is so far withholding criticism.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the industry group that represents the nation's largest food companies, did not respond to any specific parts of the proposal but called it a "thoughtful review."

President Pamela Bailey said in a statement that it is important to the food companies that the labels "ultimately serve to inform, and not confuse, consumers" but did not elaborate.

It was still not yet clear what the final labels would look like. The FDA offered two labels in its proposal — one that looks similar to the current version but is shorter and clearer and another that groups the nutrients into a "quick facts" category for things like fat, carbohydrates, sugars and proteins.

There also would be an "avoid too much" category for saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, sodium and added sugars; and a "get enough" section with vitamin D, potassium, calcium, iron and fiber. Potassium and vitamin D are new additions, based on current thinking that Americans aren't getting enough of those nutrients. Vitamin C and vitamin A listings are no longer required.

Both versions list calories above all of those nutrients in a large, bold type.

The proposed rules would also overhaul serving sizes for soda and single-serving packages. Both 12-ounce and 20-ounce sodas would be considered one serving, and many single-serving packages — a bag of chips, a can of soup or a frozen entree, for example — would either be listed as a single serving or list nutrient information by serving and by container.

The inclusion of added sugars to the label was one of the biggest revisions. Nutrition advocates have long asked for that line on the label because it's impossible for consumers to know how much sugar in an item is naturally occurring, like that in fruit and dairy products, and how much is added by the manufacturer. Think an apple vs. apple sauce, which comes in sweetened and unsweetened varieties.

According to the Agriculture Department's 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, added sugars contribute an average of 16 percent of the total calories in U.S. diets. Though those naturally occurring sugars and the added sugars act the same in the body, the USDA says the added sugars are just empty calories while naturally occurring ones usually come along with other nutrients.

David Kessler, who was FDA commissioner when the first Nutrition Facts labels were unveiled in the early 1990s, said he thinks focusing on added sugars and calories will have a "demonstrative public health benefit."

Kessler said the added sweetness, like added salt, drives overeating. And companies will adjust their recipes to get those numbers down.

"No food company wants products to look bad," he said.

While some may ignore the panels, there's evidence that more people are reading them in recent years as there has been a heightened interest in nutrition.

A USDA study released earlier this year said 42 percent of working adults used the panel always or most of the time in 2009 and 2010, up from 34 percent two years earlier. Older adults were more likely to use it.

[crazy canuck]

And what is your view on that Timmay Garbon?

[derspiess]

Our obesity problem: solved.

[The Brain]

Facts should be fun or not at all.

[Duque de Bragança]

They even use metric! The US has been catching up!

[garbon]

They even use metric! The US has been catching up!

Our nutrition labels have had metric for a bit. In fact, we have a history of being concerned that people here don't fully understand nutrition facts as we don't understand grams, etc.

[MadImmortalMan]

Should show calories from sugar and carbs.

[Sheilbh]

The proposed one seems sensible. The alternative I'm less keen on.

I like the wheel of death in Sainsbury's:

[11B4V]

I like that one better.

[LaCroix]

not sure how much impact it will have. if people aren't checking now, or know what they should be eating, then seeing some number probably won't make a difference. shame, too. comparing nutrients and price is what makes grocery stores so much fun

[alfred russel]

I wonder if there is research that shows whether any of this makes any difference. A lot of beverage companies have been upfront about prominently putting on their vending machines and cans the calories per container. Doing this without being forced to gives some indication that it won't impact sales (I assume they have done research first).

[garbon]

not sure how much impact it will have. if people aren't checking now, or know what they should be eating, then seeing some number probably won't make a difference. shame, too. comparing nutrients and price is what makes grocery stores so much fun

I can't think of anything that is made more fun by comparing prices.

[garbon]

And what is your view on that Timmay Garbon?

Come again without the attitude and I'll spill.

[LaCroix]

I can't think of anything that is made more fun by comparing prices.

different strokes, i guess! i think it's fun as hell, especially with groceries since they try and rip you off so much with either organic bullshit, brand named food, or shit "sales" (buy 10 pork chops for $10! ...total 3lb of meat, when that shit is on real sale every other week for $1.98lb)

[Monoriu]

What about imported food?  Do the new regulations apply to those as well?  Presumably.  So is that a case of either you comply with our new food labelling laws, or don't sell your stuff here?  Food labelling laws are usually agreed at the UN level to avoid that problem.