Battle Between 2 Government Agencies Stalls Overhaul of Nation’s Food Labels : Diet: FDA, Agriculture Dept. are at odds over how much nutritional information should be given to consumers. White House remains neutral.

Officials from two Cabinet departments remained stalemated Saturday over how best to revise the nation’s food labels, and they are not expected to meet the Monday deadline for issuing the final proposals.

The Food and Drug Administration, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has been locked for months in a battle with the Agriculture Department over how much information the new labels should contain.

“We’ve worked very hard over the last two years to get useful information to consumers, and we’ve essentially completed the regulations,” FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler said Saturday. “Our regulations are done. We’ve met our deadline. And we’ve been trying to get them out.”

But the White House--which has the last word--has refused to approve the FDA’s proposed rules.

One White House official who declined to be identified said that traditionally the Agriculture Department has favored industry while the the FDA and the Health and Human Services Department have been pro-consumer.

“This kind of war happens all the time. The White House is not siding with either. We are remaining neutral,” the official said.

If the dispute is not resolved by Monday, earlier draft proposals released by the FDA a year ago are scheduled to take effect. Although somewhat different, those proposals are in many ways tougher than the stalled final regulations.

Officials on both sides said Saturday they believe that new regulations still could be issued within several weeks if the conflicts are settled. But FDA officials, well aware that the incoming Clinton Administration will almost certainly back pro-consumer label regulations, is not expected to back down.

One of the biggest items in contention is the format of the nutrition information panel on the label, which typically gives quantities of fat, calories, carbohydrates, fiber, protein, cholesterol, sodium, vitamins and minerals. The FDA wants to expand this information to present each nutrient in the context of daily nutritional requirements.

For example, a label for a product with 10 grams of fat would say so, but it would also say that in a daily diet of 2,000 calories, 65 grams of fat would be the daily value--the target amount of what one should eat.

The FDA has proposed a 2,000-calorie diet as a reference point. Caloric dietary needs range from 1,700 calories for children to 1,900-2,200 calories for adult women and up to 2,800 calories for men.

“A lot of this debate focuses on what the right daily value is,” said a senior Administration official who favors the FDA proposals.

But the Agriculture Department and the food industry oppose this approach, saying it is too complicated and misleading.

“A 2,000-calorie diet is wrong for 75% of the people,” said Jeffrey Nedelman, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America. “Most consumers will not know that the reference diet on the labels, if the FDA prevails, is wrong for most shoppers. And in that sense, it simply will not be useful for them.

“And even if they know the right caloric intake for them, they won’t be able to do the math while their 4-year-old is running down the aisle in front of them,” Nedelman said.

The senior Administration official, however, said the 2,000-calorie diet has the support of all public health groups involved. “It’s only industry that is arguing for the higher number.”

The two departments are also haggling over the definition of “light” as it applies to sodium and fat. For example, one argument is over whether a “light” claim for low sodium can be made on a high-fat food, implying that the food is healthy because it is low in sodium, even though it is high in fat.

The FDA wants to reserve the term “light” for use only in reference to fat and calories, while the Agriculture Department believes that “light” should be allowed to refer to sodium levels in meat and poultry products.

The regulations are required by a nutritional labeling law passed by Congress that applies only to foods regulated by the FDA. But the Agriculture Department, which has authority over meat, poultry and processed foods containing meat and poultry, agreed to go along with labeling changes so that consumers would have uniform information on all products.

The regulations proposed by the FDA a year ago spelled out exactly how words such as “light” and “low fat” should be used, how ingredients should be listed and what information should be on the labels. The proposals were open for public comment until last February and have been under revision ever since.

The final proposals are different in some ways from the earlier ones. For example, food manufacturers will be allowed to make health claims on foods high in fiber--fruits, vegetables and whole grains--concerning their role in reducing the risk of some types of cancer. This had not been permitted in the original proposal.

Also, manufacturers will have 15 months instead of six months to start putting new labels on their products.

If the disagreement is not resolved by Monday, the draft proposals issued a year ago are scheduled to go into effect, but they would only apply to products under FDA’s jurisdiction. For example, new labels would be required for vegetarian chili, but not for chili containing meat. They would be required for frozen cheese pizza, but not for pepperoni pizza.