What’s in a Label? You Tell Us

Now that the politicians, bureaucrats, consumer advocates and food companies have had their say about nutritional food labeling, what do Californians think?

A sampling of opinions found some enthusiasm for the new regulations, announced to great fanfare last week by the federal government, but also ambivalence and disappointment.

Linda Glatstein, a registered dental hygienist from Pasadena who participated in a label preference survey for The Times last year, praises the new nutrition format, and the more meaningful definitions of descriptive terms such as light and low fat.

“I read labels . . . and the percentages (of recommended daily nutritional intake now required on food labels) are excellent and easy to understand, particularly the ones regarding fat,” says Glatstein, a mother of two. “I’m very conscious of (food’s nutritional content) because both of my parents have a history of heart disease. I believe in what the experts are telling us, that (reducing fat intake) will extend our lives and I don’t think it is fair to fill my kids’ arteries with cholesterol.”

Glatstein says she is particularly conscious of nutrition when buying a product for the first time.

“When I’m evaluating one margarine versus another then I’ll look at fat content and total calories (per serving). And sometimes the choice comes down to whether I should save 50% on a product that is not good for me or buy what I usually do which is healthier but costs more,” she says.

But Los Angeles hair salon owner Geri Ogawa, another survey respondent, says the new format seems even more complicated than the current one.

“I don’t read labels now because I don’t understand them. Even with the (new regulations) it’s still not clear what the daily requirements are supposed to be,” she says.

James J. Tobol, another survey respondent who is a realtor from Twentynine Palms, says he thinks the federal government did “a fairly good job” compromising on a final label. Tobol says he “very frequently” reads labels because he must monitor his fat, sugar and sodium intake. He remains concerned, however, that the issue of serving sizes was not adequately addressed.

“One of my biggest peeves is how companies list serving sizes on processed foods,” he says. “For instance, one 16-ounce can of soda will say that it contains two servings when everyone knows (that it serves only one).”

The new regulations--expected to begin appearing on labels by mid-1993 (they don’t apply to fresh meat and poultry nor to restaurant food)--try to establish serving size consistency. Yet, the sample label for a package of macaroni and cheese provided by the Health and Human Services Department last week was faulted for its unrealistic serving sizes. Deralee Scanlon, a Los Angeles registered dietitian, criticizes the hypothetical label for stating that a “typical” serving of macaroni and cheese was 1/2 cup per person. “No one is going to eat only a one-half cup serving,” she says. “That’s ridiculous.”

Scanlon also says that the new format’s percentages of recommended daily intake amounts to a jigsaw puzzle.

“People in government have no idea of the way the real world shops, prepares and eats,” she says. “You would have to line up all the the products in a row to see how the various percentages for (fat, cholesterol, sodium and protein) add up (to the recommended goal of 100%) . . . The new label stops short of being a real practical value for the average consumer.”

Scanlon says a label that lists how much fat, for instance, is recommended for each serving, rather than for the entire day, would be preferable.

For diabetics, though, the new labels can be a boon.

“This is a breakthrough for the diabetic population,” says Dr. Adina Zeidler, director of Diabetes Impatient Services for L.A. County/USC Hospital and a spokesperson for the Southern California chapter of the American Diabetes Assn. “In the past, the sincere, compliant diabetic would try to avoid a wide variety of foods when they were not sure what was in them. Now diabetics, and physicians too, will know better what is in the foods because of the improved content listings.”

And while the revisions may be far from perfect, says Judith Stern, a professor of nutrition and internal medicine at UC Davis, “It has taken so long to revise them that there’s no sense in fighting over them anymore. We should accept it and figure out the best way to use the food label to help us choose a healthy diet.”