Report: Food labels need Energy Star-like ratings

By LAURAN NEERGAARD , AP Medical Writer

Just like that Energy Star tag helps you choose your appliances, a new report says a rating symbol on the front of every soup can, cereal box and yogurt container could help hurried shoppers go home with the healthiest foods.

Thursday's report urges the to adopt new food labeling that clears the confusing clutter off today's packages and gives consumers a fast way to compare their choices.

It wouldn't replace the in-depth Nutrition Facts panel that's now on the back or side of food packages. But few shoppers stop to read or heed that fine print in the middle of the grocery aisle.

The Institute of Medicine says it's time to put right upfront the most important information for health: how many calories per serving - and just how big that serving is - along with stars or some other symbol to show at a glance how the food rates for certain fats, sodium and added sugars.

"American shoppers are busy shoppers," said Ellen Wartella, a psychology professor at Northwestern University who chaired the IOM committee that studied the issue at the government's request.

"We want a really simple system that says if you have three marks, that product is healthier than one with two marks."

How to get Americans to eat more wisely is a huge problem as obesity and diet-related diseases are skyrocketing. The FDA already was working to change the food-labeling system to make it more user-friendly. The agency didn't say if it would adopt a ratings approach but called Thursday's report a thoughtful analysis that would help it decide next steps.

"FDA agrees consumers can benefit from a front-of-pack labeling system that conveys in a manner that is simple and consistent with the Nutrition Facts panel," said spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey.

But the IOM's recommendation would face an uphill battle with who are pushing their own version of on-the-front and don't like the idea of ranking one food as healthier than a competitor's.

"We believe the most effective programs are those that trust consumers and not ones that tell consumers what they should and should not eat," said Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

2 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Industry backs off food labels after FDA criticism

Oct 24, 2009

(AP) -- A food industry group is voluntarily halting promotion of its nutrition labeling program after federal regulators said such systems may be misleading consumers, officials with the group said Friday.

Carbohydrate claims can mislead consumers

Sep 07, 2010

Food manufacturers advertise a variety of foods on grocery store shelves by using nutrient claims on the front of packaging. A study in the September/October issue of the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior evaluates ...

Recommended for you

Hospital logs staggering 2.5 million alarms in just a month

3 hours ago

Following the study of a hospital that logged more than 2.5 million patient monitoring alarms in just one month, researchers at UC San Francisco have, for the first time, comprehensively defined the detailed causes as well ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JRDarby
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2011
The problem with the reductionist approach is that nutrition and physiology are complex. You can't reduce nutrition to "good and bad," and you certainly can't reduce it to "three out of three nutrition stars."

- You have to balance calories: you can't have too many or too few, and it's still not that easy; you have to measure caloric intake based on numerous factors from age and sex to activity level and periodicity of meals
- You have to balance the sources of calories: too many carbohydrates at one time promotes insulin resistance but too few can cause ketosis; too much fat at one time, especially repeatedly, can also cause problems; even too much protein can be bad.
- You have to balance vitamin and amino acid intake: you can eat a balanced number of carbs, fats, proteins, and calories and still be missing essential nutrients your body needs to accomplish its myriad physiological processes.

In short, if people want to be healthy they need to take the time to be healthy.
JRDarby
not rated yet Oct 20, 2011
If you disagree, please explain to me how a rating system like that proposed above would adequately ensure people are getting their FORTY TO EIGHTY essential nutrients in proper supply.

http://en.wikiped...nutrient