Smoke and Mirrors: Front of Package Labeling
Ever have something catch your eye in an aisle at the grocery store, only to experience sticker shock when you read the nutrition label on the back? You’re not alone. A recent report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) calls for new front-of-package(FOP) labeling that will standardize food packaging in a way that helps consumers make healthier food and beverage choices. Sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, it details the use of calorie counts and a points system to better inform the public. Committee chair Ellen Wartella, of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, likened the recommendations to the equivalent of an Energy Star® rating for food and beverages. She adds, "A successful front-of-package nutrition rating system would enable shoppers to instantly recognize healthier products by their number of points and calorie information. It would encourage food and beverage producers to develop healthier fare and consumers to purchase products that are lower in calories and food components that contribute to chronic disease."
Fat Free isn’t Fat Free
With so many unaware of the meaning of front-of-package terms, food manufacturers are able to make claims that are largely misleading consumers about how healthy their products really are. Multiple studies have found most Americans do not use the Nutrition Facts panel when making food purchases, however, the report mentions FOP claims, such as low carb or fat free, may have a bearing on consumers’ perceptions of the healthfulness of foods. It’s safe to say that most consumers are not well-versed on the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Nutrient Descriptors list. The list explains that a product labeled fat free is not actually free of fat, but 0.5 grams of total and saturated fat or less, and that lean meat contains less than 10 grams of fat per serving, and that a “good source” means the food contains 10% to 19% of the Daily Value for a particular nutrient. I digress. This newly proposed standardization of FOP labeling will allow consumers to compare the most important nutritional markers of a food across brands in the same food category.
A Point System
Jennifer Hudson’s 80-pound weight loss with Weight Watchers has made headlines throughout 2011. The weight loss program, which touts a point system, has been voted by U.S. News and World Report as the easiest diet to follow. But would putting point values on every food package really help people eat healthier? The results are mixed. While the report gives evidence for and against front-of-package labels’ ability to affect consumer choice, the new labeling system may help people spot a “bad apple” amongst good food choices. The report calls for zero to three nutritional “points” for saturated and trans fats, sodium, and added sugars. Seeing these points would tip consumers off to those items that are beyond a healthy range. Putting a spotlight on these nutrients is meant to address diet-related health issues such as obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes.
Household Serving Size
The report also suggests the new FOP labeling system be integrated with the current Nutrition Facts Panel, but the issue of serving size remains. Currently, manufacturers determine the serving size of their products with guidelines from the USDA based on the "Reference amounts customarily consumed per eating occasion" or RACC, which is determined by information from a national healthy survey. The problem with this is the same as with nutrient descriptors however. Consumers are largely uninformed about the different aspects that go into determining serving size. The IOM’s report suggests this issue be remedied with calories listed in servings of a “common household measure.” Yet there is no clear explanation of how these servings will be determined or if they will be standardized by category with new regulations. Bottom line: the biggest issue with food in America is not labeling or misleading packaging, it’s portion size. Because the IOM’s recommendation regarding serving size is not clear, the usefulness of new front-of-package labeling is quite shaky. At best, new front-of-package labeling will give consumers more information about what they’re eating, but it won’t explain when enough is enough, which can only be determined by each individual. Until the changes take effect, keep counting calories people.
Your thoughts…
What front-of-package claims do you think are most misleading? What suggestions do you have for new labeling on food?
Comments
Labels drive me crazy, specifically with serving sizes. I was looking at a package of some microvae veggies and it boasted only 40 calories!.... per serving. Too bad the stupid thing was 6 servings. And the amount was so small that I definitely would have ate half of it thinking I was totally fine. It's really hard trying to section the day into 400 calorie meals and weird serving sizes don't help.
Since I've been on the Atkins diet for a year, I've become adept at reading the nutrition labels for carbs. The serving size is laughable. In some cases my 2-year-old granddaughter eats more than that. For all the bureaucratic bs of deciding what the average family eats or some standard portion set by folks who don't seem to be in touch with reality, how about something simple like this package contains xxx calories, xxxx carbohydrates, etc? If you want to do portions then one strip of bacon has XX, 24 nuts have XXX, one cup of this soup has XXXX. The rest is using the math we got in the 4th grade. (I have a 4th grader next door who helps me with that.)
Oh, yes. For those of us suffering from MBS, bigger nutrition labels.
MBS=multiple birthday syndrome
I find reading labels to be of great value, for example, when I read the label on Yoplait lo fat yogurt I discovered that one of its ingredients is high fructose corn syrup! I do not purchase this product. The same is true for non-fat half and half. I look for four things: calories per serving, with serving size clearly stated; sodium content; saturated fat; type of sweetener.
here in the UK we have 2 systems. One is traffic light based so the greener the label, the better the food. The other shows individual nutritional information - carbs, fat, salt, sugar etc and also gives a percentage of average daily allowance. I thought systems like this were commonplace!
Most of us know when we are buying "fun food"...do we have to be humiliated by the label when we go to check out? I want to have the privilege of rating my food, not leave it up to an arbitrary scale thrown together by a civil servant (no disrespect). With all the ratings and calories listings, we are still a nation of overweight citizens. Next the government will tell us what we are ALLOWED to eat. Is that what we really want? Can't we take control of this ourselves?
I have found a simple way to "avoid" reading the labels and eating healthy. I **ONLY** buy fresh produce (fruits and veggies) and meat/seafood. Anything processed (ie. comes in a box, packaged) which is 90% of the food store I avoid. The results have been great! Lossing weight and feeling better.
I don't mind if companies want to state the nutrition information per 100g or per packet, though obviously if the packet is single serving that would be better. What does irritate me is when the nutrition is stated 'per serving'. As greener333 said these are often 'laughable'. And you don't have to have MBS to find them hard to read! Several supermarkets sell mini snack pots of houmous which are meant to be one portion. They are handy to have as a snack with vegetable sticks or crackers. This link shows a typical label http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/sainsburys-price-comparison/D ips_Fillers_And_Sauces/Sainsburys_Be_Good_to_Yourself_Mini_H oumous_Pots_3x60g.html
This label is 4 times the normal size. The portion size is in tiny writing just above the nutrition wheel on the right hand side. It took me a couple of weeks to realize that the maths didn't quite add up, because the portion size is 30g but an individual pot is 60g. So you have to double everything! Half a pot is not 'a portion' because they are individual snack pots, and don't even have a replacable lid!
I've always read labels since they introduced the new system a long time ago.
No sticker shock here.
It would be much more beneficial and useful if the totals for the package were on the label (calories, fat grams, sugar, protein, etc.) Then, a person could decide how many calories, etc. they wanted to consume and simply measure out a portion of the package. It would be a whole lot easier.
My problem isn't knowing the serving size it's stopping eating at a serving size. I'm having a huge problem with portion control which is what got me into this mess in the first place. Any suggestions anyone?
I agree with jediagh and buy predominantly unprocessed fresh or frozen food. That way it is under my control what I mix and match.
When I look at the nutritional values I go buy the values for 100g especially at the percentage of fat and sugar.
I love "MBS" syndrome; I have it too. It's made me very cynical about most things mass produced. I agree with greener333; just tell me the information on the WHOLE package and let me choose how much of it I want to eat. All this nonsense about "serving size" is just misleading. Per portion. Well, as greener333 said, her 2 year old granddaughter eats more than one "portion" of things. If you get a 2 oz bag of chips, or a can of soup, you expect to eat the whole thing and not divide it into 37 portions. And although I say it, I really do not believe that a box of GS Thin Mint cookies has 2 single size servings of one roll each.... ;o)
I have started reading the nutritions facts about different food items that I love because all foods are misleading to me.
The only issue I find with this is the labels may only appear on brand name products. This is usually how these things go and I usually buy off brand things to save money and they tend to have better nutrition anyway.
My pet peeve when grocery shopping is the "serving size" issue. You pick up a very small package of nuts, see the calorie content of 200, then see that there are "about 3.5" servings in the package. So frustrating! I think everything should be labeled by how many calories are in the package because everyone's serving size is different. I am 100% behind any label changes that make dieting a bit easier.
I think the worst misleading packging lables are the ones that dosen't allow the consumers to make a inteligent choice for example when a product is GMO.
GMO has not enough testing of safety (yet is in 99.9% of processed foods) and the results of independent testes done are alarming!!! Another screaming misleading lables are the ones that claim 0% trans fat. Oh! But hydrogenated oils all over it... THATS TRANSFAT!!!
I find the labels to be ok, but we need to help those that don't look at labels. We are all here to lose weight so we really read them. What about people that don't care. Maybe something attention grabbing would be a good idea. And there are times they will say a serving is 2oz dry pasta. What the heck is 2oz? I need a measurement that I use and it needs to be for the food once it is cooked because I am not going to be eating dry pasta.
Checking the nutrition website for P.F.Chang restaurant, you will see a number 1, 2, or 3 meaning if you order an entree, it may be counted as more than one serving. So if you are checking the salt, and see 1000mg, be sure to check how many servings this entree claims. You may have to multiply the salt by 3. I think this is bordering on dishonest and misleading.
I usually read the labels and ingredient info on anything I buy. (As an aside, reading labels is something that should be taught in school. I spent some time at the FDA website learning myself when I first joined CC.)
I agree with the other sharp commentary here, that serving sizes somehow need to be standardized. Servings in 100g or 100cal portions would be logical and quick to understand.
The problem of identifying the calories of the entire package is not when you are first consuming, but when you go to the package the second time. Are you going to remember how much you used last time. No, you wont. Just maybe you might, but keep in mind, you are part of a group of people that are serious about watching what they eat and will be more likely to keep closer watch. Unlike the majority of people. I do like the idea of mandating how much is in the entire container, but an identifiable serving size is also needed for when you do not use it all in one sitting.
I agree with innerhealthcoaching. There are even to go packets of water flavor packets that are two servings! "To go" should mean you don't have to worry about measuring & who wants to worry about where to keep the other serving? The whole concept it that it's supposed to be "convenient"
Ohhhh, serving sizes! I've given up on how many sizes they "think" is in the package and go by the weight the assign a serving. Usually gets me by, until this happened:
I bought a 1 lb package of frozen tilapia. One pound is 16 ounces, yes? ok. Estimated servings per package: 4. So, 16 ounces divided by 4 servings means each serving should be 4 ounces, right?
The package said each serving was "approximately" 3 ounces, and thus each serving was "only" 90 calories.
. . . In what universe does 16 divide by 4 to give you 3?!?!?!
So now I'm left with a quandry: do I assume it's 30 calories an ounce, so 4 ounces will be 120 calories, or do I assume 4 ounces of fish is 90 calories? (I know the difference here is paltry but it's the principle of the thing. and what if I was trying to figure this out where the difference wasn't so paltry?)
both my husband and i love/d morningstar farms frozen entrees because they were healthier than the other frozen food options. having a baby that was in and out of the hospital, and all the challenges that come with new parenthood, frozen foods made things so much easier. i, myself, have battled my own body image demons through the entire gamut of eating disorders. i was looking for quick and easy to lose the baby weight asap. there's no silver bullet, and to read the packaging surprised me - per one of those little packages, which i would eat for dinner, would be 2 servings! on the front of that nice green healthy looking box it toutes as only having something like 230 calories (albeit in fine tiny print there's an asterisk denoting 'per serving' underneath). the obvious intent, though, is for the consumer to think they are only going to be eating 230 calories total - i mean, really, who's going to divide a bowl of chili into 2 portions? i stopped buying them because of the blatant 'smoke and mirrors' deception. it's not right..... legislation should be passed that things like frozen entrees - anything, really, contain a total of all the calories in the entire package, along with the number of servings per package. as well as the fat content in ounces - at least for americans, etc. if i had seen on the front of a pint of ben and jerry's that the entire pint contained 1720 calories and 3/4 of a pound of fat, i would have seriously reconsidered my dietary choices. i mean, think about the visual - 3/4 of a pound of fat.... that's 3 sticks of butter!!!!
Original Post by: pompeyOhhhh, serving sizes! I've given up on how many sizes they "think" is in the package and go by the weight the assign a serving. Usually gets me by, until this happened:
I bought a 1 lb package of frozen tilapia. One pound is 16 ounces, yes? ok. Estimated servings per package: 4. So, 16 ounces divided by 4 servings means each serving should be 4 ounces, right?
The package said each serving was "approximately" 3 ounces, and thus each serving was "only" 90 calories.
. . . In what universe does 16 divide by 4 to give you 3?!?!?!
So now I'm left with a quandry: do I assume it's 30 calories an ounce, so 4 ounces will be 120 calories, or do I assume 4 ounces of fish is 90 calories? (I know the difference here is paltry but it's the principle of the thing. and what if I was trying to figure this out where the difference wasn't so paltry?)
Zicherd makes a good point about the second trip to the box.
Regarding pompey's comment: I wonder if the portion is 4 oz out of the box and 3 oz after cooking?
I think the label needs to relate to a standard, measurable portion (100g?) as it comes out of the package. That would be the most direct and reproducible measure. The goal is to be able to understand what I am actually eating. I cook my oatmeal in water; you cook it in milk... trying to predict use is difficult. Rather, tell me about what I am getting from the package and I will assemble that information for all the ingredients.
FOP marketing and efforts to get more people to use the labels may be a separate issue. As is evident from these comments, portion size and "green-ness" varies with individual circumstance. The nutrition label should avoid this variability.
When it comes to the nutritional labeling, there needs to be uniformity. Having a portion be approximate is tough enough, but to calculate - ok, 3 oz. or 4 oz..... and 6% is fat..... and 2% is sodium.... and.... why not just have the nutritional aspect total up in oz.s? A 4 oz. portion is comprised of - 1 oz. fat, .5 oz. sodium, etc.... until everything adds up to 4 oz.? - or provide both oz.s and grams - along with percents (for those who are dedicated to having a specific percent of calories from fat, protein, carbs.). What disturbs me the most is that the FDA/USDA is constantly supporting this smoke and mirrors effect by changing the way Americans 'should' eat. I grew up with the food pyramid with blocks designating servings/day. Then it became columns. Now it's a plate. The plate doesn't work - how do you take into account sauces and modes of preparation? One could easily mistake 1/2 a plate of veggies )and/or fruits) to mean caesar salad (one of the highest in calories, salt, and fat) or fruit compote/jellies. 1/4 of a plate for carbs could be potatoes au gratin - I mean, really, does anyone think about these things before publishing this stuff and making it public? I understand that it should be portion control - and on the part of the individual consuming it - but packaging and education needs to be tailored to support that. Scale down portions to individual size for individual meals, proper labeling should be employed, and the government should work with Dr.s/nutritionists to devise a system that would educate individuals at different levels (underweight, normal, overweight, obese, morbidly obese - according to what an actual physician diagnoses). The plans would then break down according to servings and caloric totals for each component (as well as what they should, individually, focus on nutritionally) - with examples. Proteins - 8 oz. or 300 cals. per day - to which that person can either use a food scale and/or frozen options (one frozen entree). It allows for choice making and learning about portions and nutritional values.
Original Post by: pompeyOhhhh, serving sizes! I've given up on how many sizes they "think" is in the package and go by the weight the assign a serving. Usually gets me by, until this happened:
I bought a 1 lb package of frozen tilapia. One pound is 16 ounces, yes? ok. Estimated servings per package: 4. So, 16 ounces divided by 4 servings means each serving should be 4 ounces, right?
The package said each serving was "approximately" 3 ounces, and thus each serving was "only" 90 calories.
. . . In what universe does 16 divide by 4 to give you 3?!?!?!
So now I'm left with a quandry: do I assume it's 30 calories an ounce, so 4 ounces will be 120 calories, or do I assume 4 ounces of fish is 90 calories? (I know the difference here is paltry but it's the principle of the thing. and what if I was trying to figure this out where the difference wasn't so paltry?)
Paltry? I thought you were talking about fish ..... ;)
When 100% Natural Organic Olive oil cooking spray can Claim it is Fat Free and has 0 calories because the can has 419 servings in a can (1/5 of a second worth of spray) People need to stop and think. Olive Oil is Fat and all of it's calories come from fat. Just because the manufacture is able to make the serving size small enough to report it as 0 does not make Fat Fat-Free. And who can count 1/5 of a second. I don't know of any kitchen clock that is that precise. I wonder how much fat and Calories are in 1 second of spray? That would be 5 servings per second!
There is no way to even figure out any amount as there is nothing to multiply by on the label.
The sugary cereals marketed for kids that now claim to have "more fiber" or "more whole grains!". Really?? How about that they still have the same sugar/hfcs grams as they did before--the real reason to not buy this candy labeled as breakfast!
Also labels that say "fat free" but the "food" product is mostly/all sugar. Yeah, really healthy for you. lmao.
I'm assuming this article was to point out the flaws of processed food labels. If you bough meat from the meat department and veggies from produce you don't have to worry AS much about what you're eating and/or being fooled. Pesticides and GMO's are other lenghty discussions.
I check the nutrition label of every single food I buy that has a label, and when I go to eat the food I always take in account the serving size. What I would like is if more foods would be listed in measuring cups instead of oz and g. I do not have a food scale and I think most people do not own one... but I do measure out my food with measuring cups and I believe most households have a set of measuring cups somewhere in their kitchen.
Measuring servings by measuring cups would be so much easier. I hate having to guess on some foods and not actually know if I have a serving or not.
Original Post by: aussiedogsmomMy problem isn't knowing the serving size it's stopping eating at a serving size. I'm having a huge problem with portion control which is what got me into this mess in the first place. Any suggestions anyone?
The thing I do for this is to measure out a single serving size, log the calories, and put the rest away. When you put just one serving size on a plate or in a bowl (put the rest away) and sit at a table to eat, then you are only able to eat one serving size. If you want more when you are done eating you have to get up and do the whole process of measuring and logging calories all over again.
Never leave the box, bag, or pan of food on the table in front of you because then you are setting yourself up for failure. Always prepare your meals and snacks at the counter and put the rest of the food away before you sit down to eat.
Original Post by: mjbstevensI find reading labels to be of great value, for example, when I read the label on Yoplait lo fat yogurt I discovered that one of its ingredients is high fructose corn syrup! I do not purchase this product. The same is true for non-fat half and half. I look for four things: calories per serving, with serving size clearly stated; sodium content; saturated fat; type of sweetener.
When I found this out after deciding to get rid of all HFCS in my diet I had to start the process of switching yogurt. Instead of finding a new brand of flavored yogurt I like (since most of them have way to much sugar) I'm slowly adding plain Greek yogurt into the Yoplait and phasing out the Yoplait. I can't just switch because the tastes and textures are too different for me... but so far so good.
I also look for specific things on nutrition labels:
Gluten Free (I am gluten intolerant and I have to check all the ingredients on the package to see if it contains wheat, barley, malt. rye, etc.),
Calories per serving (I have turned down plenty of foods just because of ridiculous calorie amount),
how much a serving is (If the serving size is very small I might not buy it because I know I won't be able to stick to such a small amount),
Sodium (must be low is sodium. I cut out so much sodium years ago I can no longer eat things with more sodium because they taste too salty),
Fiber (I need to get higher fiber because gluten free food is not a very good source of fiber),
Sugar (I am a sugar addict so I want to cut out as much added sugars as I can, but I don't want artificial sweeteners so I hardly every buy things with artificial sweeteners in them, and now I'm cutting out HFCS too)
I use my algebra skills all the friggin time to bypass the smoke and mirrors on labels and find out the true values of my food. Today for example, I had about half a can of condensed tomato soup for lunch. The can contains 345 grams of soup, a serving is listed as 123 grams (seriously?!), so I did the math:
total amount in package divided by suggested serving size, then multiplied by calories per serving.
345 divided by 123 equals 2.8 servings per container (rounded to the nearest decimal). Side note, the can says "about 2.5" servings, but hey, they get away with it by adding "about". SO, I then multiply 2.8 times the 100 calories which brings me to 280 calories in the whole can. I ate half, so I consumed 140 calories.
Same formula works for carbs, fat or sodium; simply replace the calories per serving with the fat/ carb/ sodium grams.
Instead of saying a non defined, "a serving", it would be more helpful and easier if a real measurement is stated: 1 ounce, 100 grams, 1 cup, 1 tablespoon, ect...
I really do not see value in the point system. My big issue is when "processes" make things super simple for everyone, there is a cost. A point system can easily mask good nutrition by hiding high salt content, lacking fiber and other important aspects to watch out for while adjusting to a new eating style.
Organically grown:) This product we can feel safer eating - that is why we try to keep away from processed foods, etc. Some brands are prepared as we would prepare them if we were at home, but with the cooking having been done for us - the food has already lost some of it's vitamines, nutrition, etc., also the container the food has been kept in until you buy it to take home? :( aea
american
appetizers
asian
beans
blog
bmi
breakfast
calcium
calories
chicken
children
chocolate
coffee
confidence
cooking
craving
dessert
diabetes
diet
dieting
dietsinreview
dinner
eggs
emotionaleating
exercise
faddiet
family
fat
fiber
fish
fitness
fruit
goals
healthyeating
healthysnacks
hunger
inspiration
italian
mediterranean
mindset
motivation
nuts
obesity
overeating
party
portioncontrol
portions
protein
recipe
recipes
salad
self-esteem
shaysorrell
sleep
snack
snacks
sodium
soup
spinach
stress
successstory
sugar
support
tbl
thebiggestloser
tips
travel
tv
vegetables
vegetarian
vitamind
water
weightloss
workout
yogurt
I always check the labels when buying something new, packaging might lead me to pick it up, but I wont buy it until reading the nutrition.