Industry Wary of FDA Proposal on Food Labels : Consumers: Processors laud spirit behind federal ‘truth-in-labeling’ push but say definitions of ‘serving sizes’ and others are best left to them.

The nation’s food processors reacted cautiously Wednesday to the federal government’s truth-in-food labeling initiative, which sets strict definitions for such marketing buzzwords as fresh, fat free and light.

The industry lauded the government for taking on the leviathan task of proposing standards for hundreds of thousands of canned, fresh and frozen foods consumed by Americans. But it took issue with several of the government’s recommendations, including a key proposal that establishes uniform “serving sizes” for 131 different food categories.

The definition of a serving size is critical to label reform because nutritional claims are based on food portions. By tinkering with serving size, food manufacturers have been able to boast that their products are low in fat, sodium or other food components.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture jointly announced the proposed reforms Wednesday. Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan said at a news conference in Washington that the new labels could save 39,000 lives during the next 20 years if consumers used product information to control consumption of fat and cholesterol.

The 2,000-page labeling reform proposal is subject to public review and possible revision. New regulations aren’t expected to take effect until 1993.

The recommendations follow piecemeal efforts on the part of the Food and Drug Administration during the past year to make sense out of confusing food claims. The proposed rules expand on those actions.

Besides setting definitions for “low fat” and other common food claims, the rules also restrict the kinds of health claims that a food processor can make. The agency said it would allow companies to claim that high-calcium foods can help prevent osteoporosis in the elderly and that reduced sodium foods can limit hypertension. The agency said it would also allow claims linking fat to heart disease and cancer.

Consumer activists said the new rules would force food companies to either abandon claims or reformulate products. “As a practical matter . . . Kellogg won’t be able to say that eating All-Bran will reduce one’s risk of cancer. Wesson oil, which is simply labeled ‘light,’ won’t be labeled that way any longer,” said Bruce A. Silverglade, attorney for Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group.

One ironic result of the proposed reforms, supported by consumer groups and some manufacturers, is that mayonnaise, sour cream, ice cream and other products now labeled “imitation” or “alternative” because they don’t contain required amounts of fat would pass for the real thing. Kraft General Food’s “alternative” sour cream made with skim milk and vegetable thickeners could simply call itself sour cream under the proposal.

A Kraft spokesman said the lifting of such restrictions would give a competitive advantage to Kraft and other large food processors with the ability to develop new food formulas.

The food industry Wednesday zeroed in on the FDA’s proposal to set standards for serving sizes. The proposal is pivotal to the entire package of labeling reforms, because most other claims regarding sodium, fat or calorie content are measured by serving.

For example, some manufacturers claim that their sodas are “low in sodium” because a single serving is considered half of a 12-ounce can. Under the FDA’s proposed rules, the entire can would be considered one serving, putting the soda over the limit for “low sodium” claims.

“You can no longer simply cut a piece of cake in half . . . and now say it’s low-calorie,” FDA Commissioner David Kessler said at the news conference.

But the food industry contended that the FDA’s measurements were unrealistic. Jeff Nedelman, a spokesman for Washington-based Grocery Manufacturers Assn., called the FDA’s methodology cumbersome and argued that the industry is better equipped to devise standard food portions. “We know better how people eat. That is our business.”

The industry also argued that the FDA should approve health claims that link oats and oat bran to lowered cholesterol. The FDA said it isn’t convinced that high-fiber foods really lower cholesterol and wants to give the matter closer review. The issue is of enormous importance to Quaker Oats Co., which on Wednesday cited two dozen studies that linked oat fiber to reduced risk of heart disease and cancer.