Despite Controversy, Heart Assn. Will Move Ahead With HeartGuide

The American Heart Assn. plans to press forward with a controversial nutrition labeling program for processed foods despite criticism from consumer groups, a federal regulatory agency and a leading food industry trade organization.

The effort, called HeartGuide, is scheduled to begin in February. Foods that meet the American Heart Assn.’s dietary guidelines will be permitted to prominently display on packaging and in advertisements an endorsement from the group. The HeartGuide seal features a bold red heart with a check mark at its center. The emblem also states that the item is “Tested & Approved.”

The laboratory analysis required of each product will measure an item’s total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium contents in order to determine whether the levels meet the American Heart Assn.’s goals for a balanced diet.

The criteria for each compound, established by the association, is an eating regimen that receives no more than 30% of its total calories from fat and less than 10% of its calories from saturated fat. Recommended daily cholesterol intake is 300 milligrams and 3,000 milligrams for sodium.

Critics of the plan claim that HeartGuide may violate federal regulations for food labeling, unnecessarily taint those foods that do not carry the seal of approval and that some firms may abuse the program. There is also a dispute over whether the scientific data being used to certify foods under the HeartGuide program is proven sound. Some also say the plan is simply a money-making device for the American Heart Assn.

The Dallas-based, nonprofit group, founded in 1924, is dedicated to research and educational efforts that will reduce heart disease and related disorders. An American Heart Assn. representative says the plan was created in response to the public’s confusion over the current state of food labeling.

Yet, surprisingly, the association has received criticism about its HeartGuide program from the start. Originally, manufacturers were dismayed at the steep fees the association was charging for firms to enroll their products in the program. For instance, a best-selling item, such as a gourmet frozen dinner, would be assessed as much as $1 million annually to received the HeartGuide benefits.

Just recently, however, the association announced it was reducing the fees by as much as 40%. The reduction came--not in response to criticism--but because there has been more corporate interest in the program than anticipated, which makes the plan more cost-effective, according to an association spokeswoman.

“Our lower fees reflect more accurate financial forecasting based on the (growing) number of interested companies,” said Jamy Poth, HeartGuide communications manager for the American Heart Assn. in Dallas. “(Companies have designated a total of) 95 brands for inclusion in HeartGuide.” This number will likely increase, she said, as the Nov. 17, 1989, deadline for entering products nears.

Under the new rate schedule, companies will be asked to pay up to $40,000 to have their products analyzed by the association each year. The tests will be conducted by an independent laboratory but the fee is non-refundable if the product fails to meet the association’s guidelines.

“Companies want to be assured they are buying something more than an evaluation of their product (at that price),” a recent review of the program, by the Community Nutrition Institute, an advocacy group, stated.

Upon passing the criteria established for acceptance, the companies must then pay an annual fee of up to $600,000 to receive sales materials and advertising support for the item from the American Heart Assn.

The fees are based upon a product’s sales and share of market. However, the lowest annual fees to be charged under the current system would be $10,000 for the laboratory tests and other administrative costs and $5,000 for the educational or promotional fee.

Whether a food company pays $600,000 or $5,000 for the educational portion of the program, it will receive the same benefits: inclusion in a HeartGuide brochure to be distributed in supermarkets, use of the program’s emblem on packaging or supermarket shelve tags and mention in nationwide advertising/promotion for the system. A toll-free telephone number will also be available so that the public can call for more information on HeartGuide or to inquire about specific food products.

Regardless of the fees, Poth said that the program is designed to be “revenue neutral.”

“Everything will be paid for by the participating companies and not by public contributions,” she said. All revenue generated by the plan will remain in the HeartGuide budget and not be diverted to other association programs.

However, the association’s plan comes at the same time that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is holding a series of public hearings throughout the country on its proposal to revise food labels. The hearings will assist FDA in formulating regulations that may even allow manufacturers to state, without payment of a fee, that a particular product category may help in preventing diet-related disease if consumed as part of a balanced diet.

Emil Corwin, an FDA spokesman, said that the agency has some “differences” with the American Heart Assn. over HeartGuide, but that the objections have yet to be formalized.

Such is not the case with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has notified the association that it can not include fresh, processed or frozen meats or poultry in its promotions and labeling seals.

The group was notified last month about the prohibition in a letter from Lester Crawford, administrator of the inspection service. Crawford listed several reasons for the rejection. These include: the program would be misleading; it fails to inform the public about eating a total diet; is based on inadequate data, and would directly or indirectly brand certain foods as “good” or “bad.”

Last week, Dr. Myron L. Weisfelt, president of the American Heart Assn. asked the USDA to reconsider the decision.

“There may be a movement among some lobbyists to kill HeartGuide and I can only speculate that the USDA has caved into these special interests,” said Poth. “The decision makes no sense at all. Is the USDA not listening to the consumer or listening only to special interest groups?”

One of the program’s most severe critics is the National Food Processors Assn. in Washington. The group’s objections also echo the USDA’s concerns that HeartGuide will foster a “good food/bad food” distinction in the public’s mind.

Presumably, those foods without the HeartGuide seal, whether on not the product has been reviewed, will be stigmatized as unhealthy. Further, the food processors believe there is room for misuse of the program. The trade group also fears that only the major manufacturers will be able to afford such costly annual fees.

The food processors also object to the fact that only processed foods will be included in the program and not important foods such as fresh meats and produce.

Dr. Robert E. Olson, a professor of medicine at the State University of New York’s School of Medicine at Stony Brook, N.Y., condemned the HeartGuide program.

Olson, who also serves as a consultant for the National Food Processors Assn., said that the plan lacks merit and is “bad science, bad nutrition and bad marketing.

“Out of 50 essential nutrients that we need (in a daily diet) they concentrate on four. And none of these is essential,” he said. “Who ever heard of a private group doing something like this? (Food labeling) is the purview of the FDA and the USDA. Who gives the American Heart Assn. the authority to do this?”

Olson called HeartGuide a “hoax” and said that “it is well-meaning but misguided.”

Poth, of the American Heart Assn., said that strong criticism was not totally unexpected.

“Pioneers sometimes get the arrows in the back,” she said. “We were definitely expecting that it would be in the interest of some groups to discredit this program. But we are going forward with HeartGuide because the consumer is demanding it.”

Poth said that the American Heart Assn. has no intention of stigmatizing any product that does not carry its new seal.

“There are two parts to this idea,” she said. “It is, first of all, to help consumers select foods that can be used as part of a healthful diet. Secondly, our message is that there are no good foods nor bad foods. There are only good and bad eating habits.”

But the Washington-based Community Nutrition Institute has stated that the American Heart Assn. is using faulty data in order to determine that foods carry its seal.

In its newsletter, Nutrition Week, the group claimed, “The American Heart Assn. is promoting a ‘HeartGuide’ food-labeling program that is based on information the organization a year ago determined ‘has not been proven.’ ”

The newsletter claims that an internal American Heart Assn. report states that the effectiveness of diet therapy on patients with high-risk levels of lipoprotein cholesterol has not been done. The report, according to Nutrition Week, recommends further study of the matter.