Heart Assn. Program Will Substantiate Claims Made on Food Labels : Health: The intent is to counter misleading statements that could harm consumers. The FDA stopped regulating packaging two years ago.
The American Heart Assn., concerned that government inaction is contributing to questionable health claims by food companies, is about to launch its own program to verify statements made on cereal boxes and other labels.
The association’s program, called Heart Guide, is intended to counter what one advocacy group has characterized as “a mine field of misleading information” that could cause consumers to forgo traditional medical treatment in favor of fad diets.
Scheduled to take effect in February, the Heart Guide program will allow food producers to display a heart association seal of approval if their products conform to association guidelines on fat, cholesterol and sodium content, according to AHA spokesman Scott Ballin.
The association is attempting to fill a void created when the Food and Drug Administration stopped regulating health claims on food labels two years ago. The agency will be unable to propose new regulations until mid-1990 at the earliest.
“There is a consensus that moderation of (fat, cholesterol and sodium) in one’s diet can affect health,” Ballin said.
“The AHA sees a role to play in foods use (because) the FDA has for many years dragged its feet in developing these provisions,” he said. “The heart association believes that consumers need that information now.”
Although the association maintains that Heart Guide is a prudent response to the problem of misleading health claims while the government is formulating its own labeling initiative, critics say the AHA is overstepping its bounds.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate for a nonprofit health group to enter into the federal regulatory business,” said John Cady, president of the National Food Processors Assn. “Heart Guide is based on the ability of a company to pay for AHA to put a seal on their product.”
Under the association program, each participating food company will be charged a fee that could run as high as $640,000 annually to display the AHA seal on one of its products. The charge could be even higher if more than one product is involved.
The fee will include administrative costs ranging from $10,000 to $40,000 to cover the expense of testing the product. It also will include an educational assessment, ranging from $5,000 to $600,000 depending on the product’s market share, to finance Heart Guide advertisements, educational materials and a toll-free telephone line.
Ballin said Heart Guide would be “revenue neutral,” meaning that the association would not make any money from administering the program. “Any excess will be routed back into the program,” he said.
The food labeling issue dates back to 1987. The FDA, influenced by the deregulation crusade of the Ronald Reagan Administration, reversed an 81-year policy and allowed health claims to appear on food labels without governmental supervision.
The result was a barrage of food labels and advertisements, especially among cereal and dairy products, claiming that their low cholesterol or high fiber content helped prevent heart disease, cancer and other health problems.
An example cited in recent testimony before a congressional subcommittee was a Land O’ Lakes Sweet Cream Butter label stating that the product “contained 8% of the recommended daily allowance for Vitamin A. . . (which) helps keep skin soft and smooth.”
Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, testified that the label was factual, but misleading.
“Dermatological problems in this country are not normally caused by Vitamin A deficiencies,” Silverglade said, noting that the high levels of saturated fat contained in butter made it an “exceedingly poor way to include more Vitamin A in one’s diet.”
Land O’ Lakes spokesman Terry Nagle brushed off the criticism. “Land O’ Lakes did make claims along those lines, but the claim was not incorrect,” he said. “I don’t think anyone is going to run out and choke down stick after stick of butter to get their Vitamin A allowance.”
Since abandoning the field two years ago, the FDA has decided that some form of food label regulation is warranted. It has begun a series of national hearings to formulate a new policy, but the process will not bear fruit until the spring of 1990.
The hearings, attended by regional health and consumer groups, are designed to solicit “a substantial opinion of what the country would like to see on food labels,” according to FDA spokesman Jeff Nesbit. The final hearing is scheduled for Dec. 13 in Atlanta.
An interim labeling policy proposed by the FDA was rejected by the Office of Management and Budget, which has been given veto power over proposed rules that appear to impose an unnecessary burden on the private sector.
The FDA’s interim proposal would have limited health claims to five substances and their related health risks or benefits: calcium and osteoporosis, sodium and hypertension, fats and oils and heart disease, fats and cancer, and fiber and cancer.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), a member of the House Government Operations subcommittee on human resources and intergovernmental relations, said the OMB’s “veto-like” action on the FDA interim proposal went beyond the proper exercise of its authority.
“I think the OMB is acting as a ‘super-government,’ ” Waxman said. “It’s out of line in not allowing the FDA to go forward with its regulation.”
Waxman is chairman of another House subcommittee that has proposed its own food labeling initiative. The legislation will be considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee sometime early next year.
