It’s Good for You, but Don’t Expect Labels to Say That : Food: A year after reforms were made, few companies are taking advantage of the opportunity to brag.
The nation’s food processors typically aren’t shy about telling consumers how great their products are.
But few companies that sell foods rich in calcium, fiber and other nutrients are bragging about the healthful benefits of their products, despite government prodding to do so.
A lack of boastfulness among food producers is one of the unexpected results of federal food labeling reforms, which are a year old today. The reforms changed the look and content of food labels, and set definitions for such nutritional buzzwords as light and low fat.
The reforms also gave companies the go-ahead to tout special health benefits of foods that might, for example, reduce the risk of heart disease or cancer.
But many food companies are not making claims because they do not like the language the government requires them to use. They say the government-imposed phrases that explain the relationship between food and disease are too wordy to arrange attractively on a package.
In general, the government, industry and consumer organizations see the effect of the labeling reforms as a successful one, eliminating what had been a nutritional Tower of Babel. But a few glitches remain to be worked out, the most significant of which is the required wording for health claims.
Companies will not use the health claims if they give their packages “an odd look,” said Regina Hildwine, director of regulatory affairs for the National Food Processors Assn., an influential lobby whose members include General Mills, Nabisco and Campbell Soup.
“I think I’ve seen maybe three health claims,” she said.
The situation represents a role-reversal for the food industry and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the agency charged with setting and enforcing the labeling rules. During the 1980s, the FDA cracked down on companies making what were then unapproved health claims about the benefits of fiber, folic acid and other nutrients.
The labeling rules now permit companies to make a limited number of specific health claims, such as that calcium may reduce the risk of osteoporosis, a crippling bone disease that tends to strike older women. The dearth of such claims concerns government regulators, who believe that legitimate boasting will help consumers make well-informed choices when they shop.
“If the claims are not being used, then people are not being informed,” said F. Edward Scarbrough, labeling guru for the FDA.
Scarbrough said the agency is working with the industry to develop language that “doesn’t mislead consumers but is more label-friendly.”
Finding the right words may be tricky. To make a claim about osteoporosis, for example, the label must state who is at risk and who may benefit from added calcium. Scarbrough said the agency is concerned that a broader claim could mislead some consumers.
The sweeping reforms, several years in the making, affected virtually every food product and cost the industry $2 billion. The FDA says various surveys show that at least half of consumers are aware of the changes, but it is less clear how many consumers are using labels to make dietary choices.
“One thing we suffer from is not enough money to do consumer research,” Scarbrough said.
The agency is fine-tuning other parts of its labeling rules, including “serving size” definitions for some products. For example, bakers contend that the fat and calorie content of fruitcake appear high because the government-imposed serving size is too large.
The FDA will soon be asked by the dairy industry to redefine 2% milk, changing its descriptor from low fat to reduced fat. The low-fat term is permitted but is not technically accurate because the milk contains more than 3 grams of fat per serving.
E. Linwood Tipton, president of the Washington-based Milk Industry Foundation, said objections from consumer organizations made it difficult to market 2% milk as low fat.
“We needed a way to say what we wanted to say about 2% milk,” Tipton said.
The FDA’s Scarbrough said the agency is likely to look favorably on the milk industry’s proposal, which is endorsed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based consumer organization.
Changes in the way health claims are worded are likely to encounter opposition from consumer organizations. Bruce Silverglade, an attorney with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said “disgruntled companies with food high in fat, cholesterol and sodium” are leading the grumbling about the health claims.
The government’s labeling rules prohibit a company from making a health claim if a food is not low in fat, sodium or cholesterol. For example, a processor of whole milk cannot make a claim about osteoporosis on the label, because whole milk has too much fat.
Hildwine, of the National Food Processors, said that although the industry would like to see some of the nutritional restrictions relaxed, the chief problem is wording.
In making its case, she said, the industry anticipates a boost from a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Coors Brewing Co. in which the court ruled invalid a government ban on alcohol-content labeling. The ruling cleared the way for Coors to state alcohol content on beer labels.
The food processors have sent the FDA a letter, to which the agency has not yet responded, pointing out what the industry believes are the similarities in the Coors case and health-claim labeling.
“We think there are some pretty serious First Amendment issues,” Hildwine said.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Reading Food Labels
The percentage of people who say they frequently check food labels peaked in 1990 and is slowly declining.
1994: 60%
Source: NPD Group
