Why do consumers have such different expectations for the labeling of food than other technologies? This was the question on my mind after the Grocery Manufacturers Association Science Forum 2013 in Washington D.C. this month. It was an outstanding meeting with excellent speakers. Discussion was intense as participants tried to determine the impact of proposed rule-making on “competitive foods" (National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School as Required by Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010) and the ongoing Front-of-Package Labeling Initiative.
 
Standardized labeling empowers consumers so they can make informed, fact-based comparisons. Why is there so much emotion about the use of food labels? When looking at new vehicles, the manufacturer’s sticker provides factual information on engine size, number of cylinders, transmission type, number of forward gears, drive system (2-wheel, 4-wheel or all-wheel), etc. Similarly, the Nutrition Facts Panel provides information on serving size, amount of nutrients (grams, milligrams, international units) and percent of the Daily Value of essential nutrients provided per serving.
 
However, when it comes to food labeling, there is so much tension. Most of the emotion centers on perceptions of how the label will influence consumer use of the product. Let’s consider another technology. As a society, we accept that personal driving habits determine fuel efficiency even though car manufacturer sticker information reports city, highway and combined city/highway fuel economy. The sticker isn’t a promise of fuel economy. Consumers want a reliable comparison. We accept that actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle’s condition. We are not calling for regulations on the sale of fast cars, or large engines or high center of gravity off-road vehicles. But in nutrition, some people want to take legal action to ban large sugary drinks.
 
Maybe food products need a label saying “Actual health will vary with nutrient composition, eating frequency, exercise habits and body condition.” This may be especially relevant for caloric sources. As David Despain writes in ‘Calories aren’t right on labels and maybe that’s OK,’ it is important to remember that the Atwater factors—4, 4 and 9 kcal/gram of carbohydrate, protein and fat, respectively—were introduced as approximations. Atwater and colleagues recognized that the digestion and absorption of calories depended upon food choices (plant vs. animal), macronutrient type (relative amounts of fat, protein, carbohydrate and alcohol), food processing (coarsely vs. finely ground), and life cycle (age, pregnancy, lactation). Calorie content labels on foods are estimates, like EPA fuel economy numbers on car windows, the calorie content of a food isn’t a precise estimate of the metabolizable or net energy of a food, far less a diet. Just like car fuel efficiency, the caloric value of a food depends upon conditions of use.
 
In summary, the primary value of nutrition labeling is to compare foods. The Nutrition Facts Panel allows people to make meaningful choices. Hopefully, the adoption of voluntary front-of-pack labeling systems like Facts Up Front will help consumers be better informed so they can make healthy food and beverage choices.

——

The ideas and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect views held by Nutraceuticals World.