FDA to beef up standards for "health" food labeling

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Currently abundant on most grocery store shelves, seals of approval for purportedly healthful food selections may become scarcer in the coming year. Some labels claiming foods are "smart choices" or "heart healthy" are patently misleading, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has threatened to prohibit such promotional labeling when it ignores unhealthy aspects of a product.

"There are some foods that have gotten the Smart Choices check mark that are almost 50 percent sugar," Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the FDA, said in a Tuesday call with reporters, the Associated Press reported.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Cereals such as Froot Loops and condiments including regular mayonnaise have been awarded the "Smart Choice" label (a program launched earlier this year by large food conglomerates including Kraft, General Mills and Kellogg's) despite high sugar or fat levels. Many labels also now tout a product's high fiber, antioxidant or vitamin content despite hefty helpings of other more deleterious ingredients.

In the call, Hamburg described the "growing proliferation of forms and symbols, check marks, numerical ratings, stars, heart icons" that adorn food packages, the cornucopia of which she compared to the Tower of Babel, the AP reported. "There's truly a cacophony of approaches," Hamburg said, which can be confusing to consumers who are trying to make quick and healthful selections for themselves and their families.

The FDA warning went to food-makers in a letter on Tuesday.

Those in the industry assert that nutrition labels of their own design (and policing) are based on recommendations from the government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the AP reported. "We believe in the science behind the Smart Choices Program," Mike Hughes, chairman of the program wrote in a statement. "And we also note that the Smart Choices Program complies with all U.S. laws and regulations," The Washington Post noted.

In order to bring the various corporate labels in line with actual, overall nutritional value, the FDA is looking to establish a cohesive system of evaluation and front-of-package demarcation, perhaps an abbreviated version of the standardized Nutrition Information label, instituted in the 1990s, the Post reported. As a possible model, the U.K. has a standard, green-yellow-red label system warning consumers which food items are the most (green) and least healthy (red).

"We believe we can offer important benefits in terms of developing the science- and nutrition-based criteria for the use of dietary guidance claims," Hamburg said. New, more standardized labels may go into effect as early as next year, The New York Times reported.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/monkeybusinessimages

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe