On Fitness

Is a ‘Traffic Light’ Coming to Food Labels?

By Katherine Hobson

Posted: October 20, 2009

Is a traffic light coming to U.S. food labels? It certainly sounds like a possibility. The Food and Drug Administration said today that it's concerned about the proliferation of front-of-package nutrition labeling programs like Smart Choices, which are supposed to offer quick and easy guidance to consumers on purchasing more healthful foods. Trouble is, as the FDA said in a letter to the food industry, the different programs have different criteria, which can be confusing for consumers. They may also be violating the law if they give false or misleading information or convey an overall impression of healthfulness even if the nutritional content shows otherwise. (Hello, Froot Loops, which FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg described but did not specifically name as a Smart Choices-approved cereal, even though it has more than 40 percent sugar. Smart Choices, meantime, said in a statement that it complies with all laws and regulations and looks forward to working with the FDA.)

In addition to examining current labeling programs for potential violations, the FDA said that it would work on a single set of defined nutritional criteria for front-of-package labels. The agency said that it will perform consumer research to see what is effective and what isn't and reach out to industry to see if a "more unified" system might work best. In a conference call with reporters, Hamburg several times cited the voluntary "traffic light" program in Britain as a good example of such a standardized system. The voluntary government program uses color-coded labels to indicate whether levels of total fat, saturated fat, salt, and added sugar are low (green), medium (amber), or high (red). "That's proven to be a system that manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are overall quite comfortable with," said Hamburg.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, told me earlier this year that the U.S. food industry isn't particularly enthusiastic about anything that would feature a red light on the front of some products, discouraging consumption. But Hamburg said complete information—not simply accentuating the positive—is very important for consumers and also "sensitizes manufacturers in a new way to the composition of foods they're putting in the marketplace." While she said the FDA has had informal conversations with industry, the agency hasn't yet begun to define what a standardized system might look like; officials do, though, plan to draw from the traffic light system and similar programs in other countries. The FDA, Hamburg said, expects to have made "significant progress" on new standards by the end of 2010.

And the U.S. government already has sticks as well as carrots. As the FDA's letter said, "If voluntary action by the food industry does not result in a common, credible approach to [front-of-package] and shelf labeling, we will consider using our regulatory tools toward that end." In other words: Shape up your labels, or we'll do it for you.

Take a look at the U.K. traffic light system. Would you find something similar helpful?

Related News

Our Food Supply

It is very important for the health our nation to have meaningful legislation that establishes clear standards for the food producing companies to grow and market their products.

Nowadays, most customers do not have reliable, clear information of what products are best for their consumption. We are living in a very unhealthy nation. The lack of clear label coding/standard causes most Americans to put in their mouths foods or products that will cause them chronic illness or death. These affects our quality of life and overwhelms

our health care providing centers/hospitals. Then,we are taxed

to pay for services on health care needed but caused by the irresponsible food corporations. What do you think about this?

We are set to have no other choice, but ingest unheathy food supplies;then, we find out that our pay check is not enough to pay for health services caused by the toxic foods you consumed.

It is the irresponsible food corporations the ones that shoud be taxed to cover for illnesses they caused on us. After all,

we consumers are deceived with poor food labelings and we have no freedom of choice on consuming something healthy or something unhealthy. Average consumer thingks that by consuming vegetables and fruits they are doing the right thing; but do not reaize that most of our fresh food supply is all loaded with higher than allowed levels or they are altered with seriously unhalthy geneticly modified organisms.

While sugary, and starchy foods are highlighted in written artices and or discussions, there is no mention on all pesticides and genetically modified organisms that have plagued our food supply. Instead, I see a trend on attacking the organic food producers or discouragement of organic product consumers to use organic products.

On whose sise is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Is it on the side of the Monsanto genetically modified food products and all their highly paid lobbyist and their goal of monopolizing our food supply? Or is the FDA on the side of Consumer food supply safety? I find it so hypocritical that the officials that we elected entrusting them to advocate and protect us from those corporate entities that only seek profit

look the other way and become complacent on out of control corporations that are only after profitting and do whatever it takes to achieve their selfisy, GREEDY objectives.

All I say is, our elected officials need not to forget that they hold office becaue we elected them; and they need to be

vigilant on behalf of the majority of Americans and not to allow themselves to give into any tactics or threats by those representing the greedy corporations.

Ivett of TX @ Oct 24, 2009 13:49:28 PM

You can fool some of the people some of the time , but you cannot fuool all the people all the time.

Eat what ever you like, eat as much as you like - that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the misleading information that is put on the food label. The FDA regulates when labels can state "fat free" or "sugar free". They also require that when a health statement is made such as "sugar free", the manufacturer must add disclaimers if the fat content is high, as to not mislead people.

When one buys a food product, and actually reads the label it needs to be accurate and informative. Then, and intelligent person can make his or hers own decision.

Let us not forget that the front food label panel is advertising, and as such, when it is used to advertise and market a product it should fall under the descriptive trade practice act. It is in effect false advertising.

Several months ago I was helping a customer create his food labels ( we deal with the labels and printing side of it) The customer was very confused about the regulation. As a result we created a "human readable" (no need to be a lawyer) food labeling guide that is based on the FDA regulations. the section dealing with statements and claims is particularly relevant to this discussion.

http://www.tpgtex.com/statement_and_claims.html

Orit Pennington of TX @ Oct 21, 2009 19:27:51 PM

food labeling

I use the 3 colors on my website because I think it is helpful to get a quick visual on whether a food is nutritious or not. This is terrifying for packaged food creators because many would end up with a red label. But, the obesity epidemic is here and we need to take radical measures to end it.

Lisa

http://www.snacksnoop.com

Lisa Cain of MA @ Oct 21, 2009 08:30:09 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

On Fitness

On Fitness

Senior Writer Katherine Hobson writes about keeping your body fit and your diet healthy—and what those phrases actually mean, according to science. A longtime endurance athlete, she enjoys both training and Nutella in moderation. Ask her your burning exercise and nutrition questions at onfitness@usnews.com. Follow Katherine on Twitter at twitter.com/katherinehobson.

Health Check

advertisement

Blog Favorites

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!