by The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday proposed requiring new nutrition labels on the front of foods and beverages. This is a long-awaited move aimed at changing eating habits that are linked to rising rates of obesity and diet-related diseases, which are responsible for a million deaths each year.
The new label, a small black-and-white box similar to the nutrition panel on the back of packaged goods, is intended to help consumers quickly identify which products contain excessive amounts of sugar, salt and saturated fat. These three nutrients are implicated in the rapidly increasing rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure in the country.
More than 60 percent of American adults suffer from these three chronic diseases, which account for an estimated $4.5 trillion in annual healthcare costs, according to the FDA
Unlike the mandatory back-of-package nutritional information that lists a product’s ingredients, calorie count, and serving size, front-of-package labels list sugar, fat, and salt levels as high, medium, or low classified Indicate whether the amounts exceed or fall below the recommended daily values established by the FDA
“Almost everyone knows or cares for someone with a chronic illness that is due in part to the food we eat,” said Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the FDA, said in a statement. “It’s time we make it easier for consumers to take a look, grab and go.”
The proposal is based on three years of research by agency scientists who looked at front-of-package labels used by other countries. After reviewing studies on the effectiveness of these labels, the FDA tested future designs with focus groups to determine whether the information conveyed was easy to understand.
The proposed new labels received the highest score among the 10,000 people who took part in the focus groups, the agency said.
Food companies would have up to four years to comply with the rules if they were finalized. It is unclear whether they would continue under the new Trump administration.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has been vocal about the country’s increasing reliance on highly processed foods and vowed to change American eating habits.
Nutrition experts said they were generally pleased with the look and content of the new labels, but some expressed disappointment that they did not contain more forceful warnings if a product contained unhealthy levels of salt, sugar and saturated fat. Some had also urged the FDA to include information about calories.
“This proposal is a real step forward in our efforts to better inform consumers, although we wish the administration had chosen a format for nutritional warnings that was more likely to have a positive impact on purchasing decisions,” said Peter Lurie, the center’s executive director for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that first petitioned the FDA to introduce front-of-package labels in 2006.
Food and beverage companies criticized the new rule, saying they preferred an industry-developed version called “Facts up Front,” a voluntary labeling system introduced in 2011.
In a statement, Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy at the Consumer Brands Association, which represents many companies, said the proposed labels would include important information such as the number of calories and whether a product contains high levels of nutrients necessary for health Nutrition is important, was missing.
“FDA’s proposed front-of-pack nutrition labeling rule appears to be based on opaque methodology and disregard for industry input and collaboration,” Ms. Gallo said.
The announcement, released in the final days of the Biden administration, follows two decades of pressure from nutritionists, doctors and public health advocates who have long called on the federal government to take a more assertive role to help consumers to make healthier choices while navigating supermarket aisles.
The new package insert regulations complement FDA’s other current efforts to improve the nation’s eating habits. Last month, the agency updated definitions of “healthy” for food labeling, tightening limits on saturated fat, sugar and salt in foods. In August, the FDA issued voluntary guidelines aimed at urging food manufacturers to reduce sodium levels in processed and packaged goods.
Some said the proposed labels were too timid.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, called them “pathetically weak” for failing to clearly articulate the health risks of highly processed foods, which are estimated to account for nearly 70 percent of calories consumed by children and teens and 60 percent of them by adults .
“The proposed FDA rule does not adequately warn the American people about the dangers of consuming these unhealthy products,” he said in a statement.
But some experts say mandatory front-of-package labels could also encourage food manufacturers to reformulate products high in unhealthy nutrients.
“If you’re a retailer selling something that’s just above the threshold, you have a lot of incentive to remove a little bit of sugar from your breakfast cereal so that it doesn’t carry the high label,” said Anna Grummon, the director of the Stanford Food Policy Lab. “This is a win for consumers.”
A number of studies have highlighted the limitations of the nutritional panel, which was introduced in the mid-1990s. Lauren Fiechtner, director of nutrition at MassGeneral Hospital for Children, said many Americans, particularly those with lower levels of education, have a difficult time understanding existing labels. According to studies, the most confusing thing is the label information about an ingredient’s percentage of the recommended daily value.
“When I walk through the grocery store with my two young children, it’s a challenge to turn over every package and understand the labels, and that’s my job,” said Dr. Fiechtner. “Consumers want to be informed, but you have to keep it simple.”
Since Chile became the first country to require packaged food manufacturers to display prominent black warning logos on the front of packages in 2016, more than a dozen countries have introduced similar labels. These include Canada, Australia, Ecuador and the United Kingdom, according to the Global Food Research Program at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Nancy Glick, director of food and nutrition policy at the National Consumers League, said studies have shown that so-called interpretive labels influence consumer behavior. “These labels work, and we’ve found that people really want them,” she said.
Xaq Fröhlich, a history professor at Auburn University and author of “From Label to Table: Regulated Food in America in the Information Age,” had a somewhat cynical view of the new labels. He noted that the food industry has historically found ways to conform to labeling requirements by reformulating products in ways that were not necessarily healthier for consumers.
As an example, he said manufacturers of ultra-processed foods could replace added sugar with an artificial sweetener, allowing them to avoid the “high” label. But the reformulation, he said, wouldn’t make the product much healthier.
“It’s really difficult to create the perfect label system that doesn’t create problems and unintended consequences,” he said. “There are good-faith actors in the food industry who are really using these labels to make their products healthier, but there are also a lot of bad-faith actors who tweak their processed foods to look good on the label, but in reality it has won .” “does not reflect the spirit of what the FDA and public health experts strive for.”
