VIEWPOINTS : Setting Food Labeling Policy

I t started with a simple study.

The study showed that oat bran might help to slightly reduce cholesterol levels in people who ate a low - fat, low - sodium, low - cholesterol diet. Overnight, the previously unheralded nutrient appeared in nearly every baked good and cereal on the market, accompanied by expensive advertising campaigns. By the time the study was questioned, food containing oat bran had passed through the lips of nearly every health-conscious American. And food companies pocketed millions.

Should this and other health-related claims about foods be regulated? Should food labels provide better nutritional information? What are the responsibilities of food companies?

For a debate on food labeling and health claim policy, free - lance writer Sharon Bernstein interviewed John Cady, president and chief executive of the National Food Processors Assn., and Bruce Silverglade, general counsel to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group. In separate interviews, each was asked the same questions and allowed to respond to the other’s views.

* Is there a problem with current food labeling policy?

Silverglade: Certainly. About half of all foods in the grocery store fail to provide any nutritional information at all. Even those food labels that provide information typically lack data on saturated fats, cholesterol and fiber content, three of the very factors that the Surgeon General has told Americans to consider when choosing what foods to eat.

In addition, the fronts of food labels are filled with terms such as “light,” “natural,” “high fiber” and “low cholesterol,” which are often used in an inconsistent and misleading manner. For example, the term “high fiber” is not defined by the Food and Drug Administration. As a result, it’s slapped on the labels of foods that contain as little as 3 grams of fiber per serving--such as tortilla chips--or as much as 12 grams of fiber per serving--such as Kellogg’s All Bran cereal.

Cady: One of his (Silverglade’s) favorite words is “misleading.” The truth is, my organization has petitioned the FDA to come up with definitions of these words, like “light,” which we call “descriptor words.”

I think the current food labeling policy needs to be addressed, but from an educational point of view. It’s not a problem as much as a consumer need for information. Fifteen years ago, 10 years ago, when our current labeling system was being developed, concern with diet and health was not what it is today.

* Are some labels misleading?

Cady: I don’t think food companies are out to mislead and provide misinformation to consumers. If you mislead somebody once, they won’t buy from you again.

There may be instances people can point to, but we’ve got a large industry. There are a lot of products out there. He (Silverglade) may hold up a product, but let’s look at the total food industry.

Silverglade: The term “natural” is used on products that contain artificial and highly processed ingredients. Planters Microwave popcorn is labeled natural, yet it contains an artificial preservative. There’s just no definition of the word natural, so companies are getting away using it deceptively.

The term “light” is another example. For example, Sara Lee put on a label, “Sara Lee Light Classics French Cheesecake--only 200 calories per serving.” Yet a serving of that had more calories than an equal-sized serving of the company’s regular cheesecake. When questioned by an FDA task force, the company said the term “light” really referred to the texture of the cheesecake.

Cady: He’ll use the famous Sara Lee example, and in that case “light” meant light and fluffy, but it was interpreted by some to mean light in calories. Well, since when is a cheesecake light in calories?

The word “light” in food typically refers to color. We conducted a study and asked people what they thought “light” referred to, and one woman did say she always thought it meant light in color.

Silverglade: A survey taken by FDA itself shows that most consumers believe that “light” means lower in calories and fat. But in reality, companies use the term to refer to the color and texture of the product.

Cady: If you look at a bottle of cooking oil, you can see that the term “light” refers to color. Some oils are lighter in color than others.

Silverglade: It probably is lighter in color but that probably has no health effect. And it doesn’t say “light color.” It just says “light and natural.”

* What about the oat bran controversy? Were Quaker Oats and other companies wrong to claim that eating oat bran would reduce cholesterol levels?

Cady: There were some well-documented studies showing the place oat bran could be used in a diet. Now there’s a new study that came out.

Well, the new study isn’t definitive. As long as we are in this evolutionary process and consumers are interested in what is healthful, then food companies are going to respond to consumer demands. Obviously there were studies done and there will be others. But the jury is still out.

As far as Quaker Oats is concerned, the company has 22 years of scientific evidence relative to oat bran and Quaker Oats does not want to mislead its customers.

Silverglade: Quaker Oats was the first major company to start making oat bran claims. The company paid researchers at Northwestern University to conduct a study on Quaker oatmeal. The study showed cholesterol levels dropped 3 percentage points due to consumption of oatmeal. Overall, because the people in the study group were fed a low-fat, low-cholesterol, high-fiber diet, cholesterol levels dropped 10%. Quaker launched a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign which greatly exaggerated the study’s findings. The state of Texas is suing . . . for it.

* The American Heart Assn.’s HeartGuide program, which presents a seal of approval to companies whose products meet certain criteria, has come under fire from the FDA and others because companies must pay a hefty fee to participate. The program gives the seal to fatty products such as oil or margarine if they’re made from unsaturated fats--even though doctors say people should reduce their intake of all fats. What do you think of the program?

Cady: We are against the HeartGuide program. We’re against any program that is run by a private agency instead of a government agency. We’re against a product labeling program where you pay for a seal. And we’re against a program that sets up a good food-bad food relationship. There are no good foods or bad foods. They all fit into a total diet.

Silverglade: It’s unfortunate that the Heart Assn. began placing its heart seal on products such as margarine and cooking oils, which are entirely fat. Overall, though, I think the FDA has acted prematurely in trying to stop the Heart Assn. program.

We support it because it does require a listing of polyunsaturated fats on food labels where the seal appears. And the information is disclosed using an innovative bar graph format that we are urging the FDA to follow for all food labels.

* Should food companies be allowed to make health claims about their products?

Silverglade: The federal government should prohibit health claims unless there is a consensus within the health-care community. Right now, companies are claiming that their food will do everything from lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease to prevent colon cancer.

Cady: We believe that health claims should be allowed and we have asked the FDA to issue health claims guidance. We believe health claims should be supported by studies but they should not have to be approved by the FDA. They should be truthful and there should be scientific evidence to back them up, unless revealing the scientific evidence would put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

* There is a food label and health claim reform bill in committee in Congress, sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) in the House and Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) in the Senate. It would require nutritional information on most labels, define terms such as “light” and “natural,” and restrict health claims made about foods. Do you support it? Does it have a chance?

Cady: I think a voluntary labeling system would be the best choice. However, if the FDA does not accept that, then we would look at some form of mandatory nutritional label, as long as the labeling law was uniform across the United States. We have said that we will support the bill as long as the requirements are uniform.

Silverglade: We support the bill. But unfortunately the legislation is being hindered by the Grocery Manufacturers of America and the National Food Processors Assn. These associations are holding up the legislation by demanding that any food labeling reform bill preempt state laws such as California’s Proposition 65 that requires health warnings about contaminants in foods. The result of their actions is to impede the path of the legislation.

The food industry’s demands that the Waxman-Metzenbaum bill preempt state laws about contaminants in food make the legislation very controversial and may cause it to lose votes. They say they support it, but they’re adopting a strategy designed to kill it.

Cady: That’s just totally a misunderstanding and a misinterpretation of the position we’ve taken on national uniformity. The position we’ve taken is that the information a consumer receives throughout the United States should be the same across the board.

The food industry wants to give people the information that they deserve and they desire.