What’s on a Label? The Readers Speak

The voluminous food labeling revisions recently released by the federal government have left one thing unsettled: how nutrition information will be presented on product packaging.

The labeling revisions, which bring order to the unwieldy and imprecise language being used on food products today, were released earlier this month by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The proposals, now undergoing a 90-day public comment period, redefine important character- istics such as serving sizes, health claims and such frequently misused promotional phrases as light , lean and low calorie .

But the agencies have yet to determine how all this information will appear on packages. “Packaging is everything,” says Jodie Silverman, communications director for Public Voice for Food & Health Policy, a Washington-based advocacy group. “The format is very important because if consumers can’t understand the label then it doesn’t matter what is on it.”

Thus, this final step in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 may be the most important. Last month, The Times’ Food section asked readers, in an informal survey, to select the best of the seven labels being considered by FDA.

A significant number, or 44%, of those readers who responded preferred the format that offers descriptions or guidelines stating whether an important component--such as fat, cholesterol, sodium or calories--was present in a product in either Low, Medium or High levels as determined by suggested daily intake levels. The next most popular label, a variation of the label in use today, was preferred by only 17.5% of the respondents.

The descriptive format is one being advocated by several consumer groups involved in the labeling debate.

Silverman says the use of adjectives such as Low, Medium or High serves two important functions. “This format gives consumers the important information they need and it does it in a simple, straightforward way.”

The same approach is being criticized by industry groups for unfairly creating an impression of good or bad foods. Manufacturers insist that in a well-balanced diet there is room for all foods in moderation.

“We do not want to create a label that causes some aspect of the food to stick out (in a negative fashion) versus another aspect,” says John R. Cady, president of the National Food Processors Assn. in Washington. “The rationale being that all the dietitians in this country talk about a well-balanced, moderate diet and that any food can be eaten in moderation. If a good food/bad food label is adopted by FDA, then the government will be making purchasing decisions for consumers.”

Chris Lecos, an FDA spokesman in Washington, says that his agency will survey about 1,200 people throughout the nation before settling on a labeling format. He estimates that private industry groups will question another 7,000.

Beyond stating a simple preference, many Times readers elaborated on their decision and some comments demonstrate the importance of nutrition labeling for a cross-section of the public. Many of those that preferred the descriptive format offered an explanation.

Typical of such statements was one from Richard C. Geiger of Van Nuys, who wrote: “If you are looking for foods with good nutrition in mind, this label is very good and simple to understand. It’s good to see this low, medium and high adjective barometer; it gives you a basis to stay within the limits of the Daily Value as well as paying attention to ingredients we should be getting more of and avoiding ingredients in accordance (with) staying within the confines of your particular diet.”

Another comment in support of the descriptive or adjectival format was from Phyllis Wolverton of Costa Mesa. She wrote: “I like the spelling out of Low, Medium and High. This will make grocery shopping much easier, in particular for working mothers who have to shop before going home and are pressed for time. . . . I am also thinking of grade school children who are beginning, thankfully, to be more aware of what food they are eating. Think of how much simpler this makes it for them.”

Another reader, Diane L. Levison of San Luis Obispo, dismissed industry trade groups’ fears about certain foods being stigmatized.

She wrote: “I prefer this (descriptive) label because it contains no good/bad value judgments, does not ‘instruct’ me how to eat, yet provides sufficient information to enable a rapid, reasonably informed basis for product selection.”

As interesting as the comments about preferred formats was a block of letters from Times readers who asked that other issues be addressed as well. Several of these were from senior citizens. One such letter--from V. Russ Seymour of Encina--stated that food ingredient lists are often printed in type too small to be legible.

“Do your best to get the news out that companies that use tiny print are suspect. . . . (There are) several million prosperous elderly folks who dislike or won’t bother reading ‘junk type’ as they call it,” he wrote.

Another view comes from Carolyn B. Conner of El Cajon. She writes: “I am ‘just’ a housewife and what I want are ‘just the facts’. . . . I suspect the proposed labels are designed for aging yuppies who are currently panicked about fat much as we all were about calories a decade ago. Nutrition is much more broadly based than that.”

Finally, Robert Aronoff of South Pasadena took time to raise a food safety issue.

“One thing egregiously missing from (the FDA’s) examples is the date of manufacture . . . and the ‘use by’ date. No edible product should be without these dates. If manufacturers think other dates need be used, then let them put them on (in addition to) these two ‘must’ dates.”

The government’s initial findings have not been as clear-cut. In discussing the format changes last month, FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler said the public’s responses were “puzzling.”

“People said that the current label format was the most helpful,” he said, “but they liked it the least.”