Search results: front-of-package

Last week I did a post on the FDA’s reorganization.   I should have made one other point: the long-standing inadequacy of FDA funding.  For decades, Congress has assigned tasks to the FDA but provided inadequate funding to do those tasks adequately (hence 1% of imported foods are inspected).  Congress also assigns the funding for specific purposes.

Yes, FDA ought to be doing more, but it is not up to the agency to decide how to deploy its funds.

One more point: For long-standing historical reasons, FDA funding comes from congressional Agriculture committees, even though it is an agency of the Public Health Service.  That is one reason why USDA’s food safety programs are funded at so much higher a level than FDA’s.

With that said, the FDA has come out with some recent initiatives of interest.

I.  Front-of-Package labels.  The FDA is proposing to research a front-of-package symbol: “an easy-to-understand, standardized system that is 1) mandatory, 2) nutrient-specific, 3) includes calories, and is 4) interpretive with respect to the levels of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat per serving.”

It is doing this in response to a petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The comments that have come in so far are here.

It is examining the use of front-of-pack symbols in other countries.

It also plans to conduct research on consumer understanding of multiple designs.  Here are the prototype packages on which the designs will be tested.

None of these is likely to be as effective as the ones used in other countries.

Here is one of the better options, in my opinion.

To file comments, go here.  It’s important to do this because the Consumer Brand Association (formerly the Grocery Manufacturers Association) and other industry groups are unlikely to accept any labeling scheme that might discourage you from buying a product.

II.  Qualified health claim: cocoa flavanols.  The FDA has approved a qualified health claim for cocoa flavanols and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

This was in response to a petition from the Swiss chocolate company, Barry Callebaut.

Here’s what the FDA will allow.  Yes, this is absurd (look at what the FDA has to go through to get to this), but companies must think statements like this will sell their products.

• “Cocoa flavanols in high flavanol cocoa powder may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, although FDA has concluded that there is very limited scientific evidence for this claim.”
• “Cocoa flavanols in high flavanol cocoa powder may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. FDA has concluded that there is very limited scientific evidence for this claim.”
• “Very limited scientific evidence suggests that consuming cocoa flavanols in high flavanol cocoa powder, which contains at least 4% of naturally conserved cocoa flavanols, may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.”
• “Very limited scientific evidence suggests that consuming cocoa flavanols in high flavanol cocoa powder, which contains at least 4% of naturally conserved cocoa flavanols, may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. This product contains at least 4% of naturally conserved cocoa flavanols. See nutrition information for_____ and other nutrients.”

III.  GRAS panels.  The FDA has issued final guidance on best practices for panels deciding which ingredients can be Generally Recognized as Safe.

This lays out the guidelines for

• Identifying GRAS panel members who have appropriate and balanced expertise.
• Steps to reduce the risk of bias, or the appearance of bias, that may affect the credibility of the GRAS panel’s report, including assessing potential GRAS panel members for conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest.
• Limiting the data and information provided to a GRAS panel to publicly available information.

A lot of this is headache-inducing.  FDA rulemaking takes forever.  Can’t wait to see how all this turns out.

*******

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

The Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI) published a report, Spotlight on Lobbying 2022 just in time for Christmas.  I am just getting to it.

ATNI has been commissioned to benchmark the world’s 25 largest F&B companies’ lobbying-related commitments, management systems, and disclosure against the Responsible Lobbying Framework (RLF). The RLF was developed to help organizations adopt corporate practices that ensure their lobbying activities are legitimate, transparent, consistent, and accountable, while providing the opportunity for other, more resource-constrained groups, to lobby in the public
interest.

Note that this report focuses on corporate promises and internal practices.  It does not evaluate what the companies are actually doing to influence nutrition policy.

The results?  No surprise, “current practice is far from the standard set in the RLF.”

Of course it is.  Why would companies want to stop lobbying when it is so effective in protecting their profits.

The report mentions the major issues:

• Taxes on unhealthy foods
• Marketing restrictions, particularly to children
• Mandatory front-of-package labels
• Food-based (rather than nutrient-based) dietary guidelines.

I hope its next lobbying report will document how these companies are fighting every one of these public health initiatives.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Last week, STAT News asked if I would write something about the FDA’s definition of “Healthy” for them.  I agreed because I was planning a blog post on it anyway (posted here).

I wrote a draft and had a great time working with a STAT editor, Patrick Skerritt, to fill in some missing pieces.  Here’s how it came out (with a couple of after-the-fact embellishments).

First Opinion: FDA’s plan to define ‘healthy’ for food packaging: Better than the existing labeling anarchy, but do we really need it?   STATNews, Oct. 7, 2022

The FDA has announced the set of rules it proposes to enforce for manufacturers to claim that a food product is “healthy.” The proposed rules are a lot better than the labeling anarchy that currently exists. But here’s my bottom line: health claims are not about health. They are about selling food products.

The FDA says that a “healthy” product must meet two requirements: It must contain a meaningful amount of food, and it must not contain more than certain upper limits for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.

To illustrate the “healthy” claim, the FDA is also researching a symbol that food makers can use, and might be testing examples like these.

[Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2021-N-0336-0003]

Doing all this, the FDA says, would align “healthy” with the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and with the Nutrition Facts label that is printed on food packages.

This action is the latest in the FDA’s attempts to simplify food label information so it’s easier for consumers to identify healthier food choices. It is also an attempt to head off what food companies most definitely do not want: warning labels like those used in Chile, Brazil, and several other countries. These have been shown to discourage purchases of ultra-processed “junk” foods, just as they were supposed to, a message understood even by children or adults who cannot read. No wonder food manufacturers will do anything to prevent their use.

If we must have health claims on food packages, the FDA’s proposals are pretty good. They require any product labeled “healthy” to contain some real food (as opposed to a collection of chemical ingredients or, as author Michael Pollan calls them, “food-like objects”), and for the first time they include limits on sugars.

Here’s an example given by the FDA: To qualify for the “healthy” claim, a breakfast cereal serving would need to contain at least three-quarters of an ounce of whole grains and could contain no more than one gram of saturated fat, 230 milligrams of sodium and 2.5 grams of added sugars.

These proposed rules would exclude almost all cereals marketed to children.

But do Americans really need health claims on food products? You might think that any relatively unprocessed food from a plant or animal ought to qualify as healthy without needing FDA approval, and you would be right. But health claims aren’t about health. They are meant to get people to buy food products, not real foods like fruit, vegetables, grains, nuts, meat, poultry, dairy, eggs, or fish.

Food companies love the term “healthy” because it gets people to buy food products.

 

The history of “healthy”

How did we get to where the FDA needs to require a product to contain real food to be considered “healthy”? Blame KIND bars.

In 2015, KIND (then a small private company, but now owned by Mars) advertised its bars as healthy because they contained whole foods like grains and nuts. But nuts have more fat than the FDA allowed at the time for products to be labeled as “healthy.” The FDA warned KIND that its bars violated the rules for health claims.

KIND fought back. It filed a citizens’ petition arguing that even though nuts are higher in fat than the FDA allowed, they are healthy. The FDA could hardly argue otherwise — of course nuts are healthy — and it backed off. It permitted KIND to use the term and said it would revisit its long-standing definition of “healthy.” That was good news for KIND.

At the time, the FDA’s definition of “healthy” set upper limits for fat, saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol; required at least minimal amounts of one or more vitamins or minerals; and said nothing about sugars. So the new FDA proposals break new ground in simplifying the nutritional criteria and in putting a limit on sugars.

 

Front-of-package symbols

These, too, have a long history with the FDA. In the early 1990s, when the agency was writing the rules for Nutrition Facts labels on food products, it tested public understanding of several prototype designs. As it happened, nobody could understand any of the samples very well, so the FDA picked the one that was the least poorly understood. Soon afterward, food companies and health organizations developed symbols that would allow buyers to recognize at a glance which products were supposed to be good for them.

By 2010, more than 20 such symbols were on food packages. The FDA commissioned the Institute of Medicine to do studies of front-of-package labeling. The Institute’s first report on the subject examined the strengths and weaknesses of all of the symbols cluttering up the labels of processed foods, and recommended that the FDA develop a single symbol that would cover just calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Why not sugars too? The Institute said calories took care of them.

But the Institute’s second report did include sugars. It recommended a front-of-package labeling system that would give food products zero, one, two, or three stars (or check marks) depending on how little they had of the undesirable nutrients.

This idea so alarmed food manufacturers that they quickly developed the Facts Up Front labeling system in use today.

This, in my view, is so obfuscating that nobody pays any attention to it. But this scheme, coupled with industry pushback, was all it took to get the FDA to drop the entire idea of a symbol that would tell people what not to eat.

Here we are a decade later with the FDA’s current proposal. This plan is strong enough to exclude huge swaths of supermarket products from self-identifying as “healthy.” Products bearing the “healthy” symbol will have to contain real food and be low in saturated fat, salt, and sugar, as called for by federal dietary guidelines.

The new rules won’t stop “healthy” products from being loaded with additives and artificial sweeteners. And the FDA won’t require warning labels for unhealthy products, which work better than other symbols. But these proposals are a marked improvement over the current situation.

And the FDA might do more. It could look into the idea of warning labels. It already promises to make a decision about the other ambiguous marketing term, “natural.” A decision on that one can’t come soon enough.

As for “healthy,” the FDA is seeking feedback on its proposals. Instructions for filing comments, which can be made until Dec. 28, 2022, are at Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims; Definition of Term “Healthy.”

I can’t wait to see what companies wanting to sell ultra-processed food products as “healthy” will have to say about this.

Marion Nestle is professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, author of the Food Politics blog, and author of the new memoir, “Slow Cooked: An Unexpected Life in Food Politics” (University of California Press, October 2022).

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

JAMA Internal Medicine has just published an editorial I wrote: Preventing Obesity—It Is Time for Multiple Policy Strategies

As it explains, it is a commentary on a research article by Joshua Petimar, et al, Assessment of Calories Purchased After Calorie Labeling of Prepared Foods in a Large Supermarket Chain  

Both papers are behind paywalls, but here are the key points of the supermarket article:

Question  Was calorie labeling of prepared foods in supermarkets associated with changes in calories purchased from prepared foods and potential packaged substitutes?

Findings  In this longitudinal study of 173 supermarkets followed from 2015 to 2017, calories purchased from prepared bakery items declined by 5.1% after labeling, and calories purchased from prepared deli items declined by 11.0% after labeling, adjusted for prelabeling trends and changes in control foods; no changes were observed among prepared entrées and sides. Calories purchased from similar packaged items did not increase after labeling.

Meaning  Calorie labeling of prepared supermarket foods was associated with overall small declines in calorie content of prepared foods without substitution to similar packaged foods.

I was really interested in this study because the “large supermarket chain” that supplied reams of data was so obviously Hannaford, which has long been ahead of the curve in trying to encourage customers to make healthier food choices.

In 2005, Hannaford initiated a Guiding Stars program that ranked–and still ranks–products by giving them zero to three stars depending on what they contain.

I wrote about the first-year evaluation of this program way back in 2006.  It did help customers to make better choices.

Now, all these years later, the FDA is contemplating doing some kind of front-of-package label.  As I said, Hannaford is way ahead.

But the point of my editorial is that single interventions rarely do better than what this study found.

I argue here for trying multiple strategies at once:

My interpretation of the current status of obesity prevention research is that any single policy intervention is unlikely to show anything but small improvements.

Pessimists will say such interventions are futile and should no longer be attempted.

Optimist that I am, I disagree.  We cannot expect single interventions to prevent population-basedweight gain ontheirown,but they might help some people—and might help even more people if combined simultaneously with other interventions.

….Widespread policy efforts to reduce intake of ultraprocessed foods through a combination of taxes, warning labels, marketing and portion-size restrictions, dietary guidelines, and media education campaigns, along with policies for subsidizing healthier foods and promoting greater physical activity, should be tried; they may produce meaningful effects.

Politically difficult? Of course. Politically impossible? I do not think so.

Unless we keep trying to intervene—and continue to examine the results of our attempts—we will be settling for the normalization of overweight and the personal and societal costs of its health consequences.

Here’s Ted Kyle’s commentary on my commentary on ConscienHealth.

Since I’ve figured out how to enbed videos, you might want to take a look at this one.

This one is about Nutri-Score, a front-of-package labeling system that started in France but is used in several European countries.  The system balances the healthful and unhealthful aspects of processed foods, and assigns a composite color-coded score, from A (very healthy) to E (oops), and from green to red.

Once you know how the system works, you can easily figure out which ultra-processed foods are best avoided.

The video is in French with English subtitles (but also comes in French without subtitles or with Spanish subtitles).

For more about Nutri-Score go here and here.
For what I’ve written previously about Nutri-Score, go here.

Canada has joined the ranks of countries with front-of-package food labels alerting customers to products high in salt, sugar, and saturated fat.

I learned about this in a press release from Kate Comeau, Communications Advisor, Mission, Canada | Heart & Stroke

The official announcement from Health Canada is here. 

It comes with an explanatory Infographic.

I think the warning labels used in some Latin American countries work better, but this is a big step forward and is likely to cover the great majority of ultra-processed foods—and those are the ones that are best avoided.

Congratulations to Canadians who pushed for this.  Progress!

The FDA is issuing yet another notice about consumer research on a symbol for “healthy.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is issuing a 30-day procedural notice on the preliminary quantitative consumer research it plans to conduct on voluntary symbols that could be used in the future to convey the nutrient content claim “healthy”…while at the same time developing a proposed rule that would update when manufacturers may use the “healthy” nutrient content claim on food packages.

It’s déjà vu all over again.

I went right back to what I wrote on  January 1, 2016.

**** Here’s what I said back then:

FDA: What is happening with front-of-package labels?

****So here we are six years later:

• Procedural Notice on Consumer Research on “Healthy” Symbol (May 2021)
• Use of the Term Healthy on Food Labeling
• Food Labeling & Nutrition

I can’t wait to see what this symbol is going to look like.  The mind boggles.