One of the theories currently bandied about in nutritional circles is that added sugars in processed foods are contributing to the worldwide, and particularly the American, obesity epidemic. One of the fixes proposed is that “added sugars” be included on the Nutrition Facts label. To that end, in May, the FDA posted a comment request in the Federal Register on an “Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Nutrition Facts Labels With Various Footnote Formats and Declaration of Amount of Added Sugars.”
The 20 comments make for interesting reading. (Well, 19 at least, if you discount the incoherent rant by one of the “Anonymouses” that seems to be about FDA contractors.) They include comments from the usual suspects: Marion Nestle, the American Heart Association, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), and the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University encourage labeling. the American Bakers Association, the Independent Bakers Association, the American Beverage Association, the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Dairy Council, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Confectioners Association, Ocean Spray Cranberries and the Sugar Association oppose labeling.
Central to many of the arguments is whether “added sugar” contributes to obesity. One side argues that either the sweetener itself is a problem or that added sugar is a marker for nutrition-devoid food. The other side argues that it unfairly implies that excess carbohydrate sweetener calories are somehow worse than excess calories of other sorts and that there’s no difference between added and naturally occurring sugars.
Both sides have some valid arguments. (Unsurprisingly CSPI goes off the deep end: “CSPI urges FDA also to evaluate the effects of labels that show only added sugars and juice sugars,” and not the total sugar content, somehow inferring that added sugars are chemically and/or metabolically different than the same sugars in, for example, an apple or a sugar beet.) But the point of the study is to “focus on the following types of consumer reactions: (1) Judgments about a food product in terms of its nutritional attributes and overall healthfulness; (2) ability to use the Nutrition Facts label in tasks, such as identifying a product's nutrient contents and evaluating the percent Daily Values for specific nutrients; and (3) label perceptions (e.g., helpfulness and credibility)” And it’s not meant to settle the debate on whether added sugars—whatever they are defined as—are good or bad for our health. From that standpoint the study is valid, especially if the labels of certain items are paired together--for example fruit leather (added sugar) vs. potato chips (no added sugar) or instant oatmeal (added sugar) vs. a meaty, cheesy breakfast biscuit (no added sugar). Inquiring minds also want to know if a bag of granulated sugar will be labeled 0% added sugar or 100% added sugar. If it’s the former, it’s likely that the implication is that if you add a couple of teaspoons to your iced tea, that’s somehow better than if a manufacturer adds it.
In fact, consumer understanding is the crux of the matter. I haven’t seen any research that indicates that consumers are particularly adept at deciphering the current nutritional information, so I’m not confident that adding an “added sugars” declaration makes a lot of practical sense . Rather, it’s likely it will just further confuse people. Here’s what I propose: Let’s just add a front-of-pack label that says, “Hey you! This stuff has a lot of calories and not a lot of nutritional value. Stop eating so much!”
The 20 comments make for interesting reading. (Well, 19 at least, if you discount the incoherent rant by one of the “Anonymouses” that seems to be about FDA contractors.) They include comments from the usual suspects: Marion Nestle, the American Heart Association, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), and the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University encourage labeling. the American Bakers Association, the Independent Bakers Association, the American Beverage Association, the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Dairy Council, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Confectioners Association, Ocean Spray Cranberries and the Sugar Association oppose labeling.
Central to many of the arguments is whether “added sugar” contributes to obesity. One side argues that either the sweetener itself is a problem or that added sugar is a marker for nutrition-devoid food. The other side argues that it unfairly implies that excess carbohydrate sweetener calories are somehow worse than excess calories of other sorts and that there’s no difference between added and naturally occurring sugars.
Both sides have some valid arguments. (Unsurprisingly CSPI goes off the deep end: “CSPI urges FDA also to evaluate the effects of labels that show only added sugars and juice sugars,” and not the total sugar content, somehow inferring that added sugars are chemically and/or metabolically different than the same sugars in, for example, an apple or a sugar beet.) But the point of the study is to “focus on the following types of consumer reactions: (1) Judgments about a food product in terms of its nutritional attributes and overall healthfulness; (2) ability to use the Nutrition Facts label in tasks, such as identifying a product's nutrient contents and evaluating the percent Daily Values for specific nutrients; and (3) label perceptions (e.g., helpfulness and credibility)” And it’s not meant to settle the debate on whether added sugars—whatever they are defined as—are good or bad for our health. From that standpoint the study is valid, especially if the labels of certain items are paired together--for example fruit leather (added sugar) vs. potato chips (no added sugar) or instant oatmeal (added sugar) vs. a meaty, cheesy breakfast biscuit (no added sugar). Inquiring minds also want to know if a bag of granulated sugar will be labeled 0% added sugar or 100% added sugar. If it’s the former, it’s likely that the implication is that if you add a couple of teaspoons to your iced tea, that’s somehow better than if a manufacturer adds it.
In fact, consumer understanding is the crux of the matter. I haven’t seen any research that indicates that consumers are particularly adept at deciphering the current nutritional information, so I’m not confident that adding an “added sugars” declaration makes a lot of practical sense . Rather, it’s likely it will just further confuse people. Here’s what I propose: Let’s just add a front-of-pack label that says, “Hey you! This stuff has a lot of calories and not a lot of nutritional value. Stop eating so much!”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment