The pros and cons of the newly proposed US nutrition labels
By Michael Fenster, MD
General Labeling Nutritional labeling in the USPhysician-chef points out the pros and cons of three suggested changes.
It’s nothing new to the American consumer that food packaging emphasizes only part of a product’s health story, and the fact that the nutritional labeling hasn’t been overhauled in 20 years hasn’t helped, says cardiologist and professional chef Michael S. Fenster, MD.
A proposed update, which could take a year or more to appear on store shelves, is being driven by U.S. president first lady Michelle Obama, as part of her ‘Let’s Move‘ campaign.
“Our current nutrition labeling is the same as that implemented in the 1990s, except with the 2006 addition of trans fats information. It’s based on nutrition data and eating habits from the 1970s and 1980s,” says Fenster, author of Eating Well, Living Better: The Grassroots Gourmet Guide to Good Health and Great Food.
From the perspective of physician and foodie, he analyzes what’s good about the first lady’s proposed new label, and what could be improved.
- Good: Calorie counts would be displayed in a bigger, bolder font. Emphasizing calories allows consumers to think with a helpful ‘energy in / energy out’ baseline. Do I really need the calories in this product when I could stand to lose a few pounds? That’s a reasonably good question to promote.
Says Fenster: “Basing the value of food primarily on calories over-simplifies the evaluation process. An energy drink may have zero calories, but it’s not better for you than an apple, which may have 100 calories. We cannot overlook nutrition!”
- Good: Serving sizes would be determined from real data reflecting the portions real people typically eat. A serving of ice cream is expected to increase from a half cup to a full cup, and a one-serving muffin would be four ounces instead of two ounces, reflecting the obvious fact that people generally consume the whole scoop of ice cream and the whole muffin.
Fenster notes: “Food producers may simply change the size of pre-packaged portions to skirt the rules. Industry experts suggest some food manufacturers may just reduce the package size to make their labeling more seductive. When food is parceled into smaller packages, the price per unit usually increases – it becomes more expensive for consumers.”
- Good: New labeling would have listed separately, ‘added sugar.’ The grams of sugar added, irrespective of whether it’s pure cane sugar, corn syrup, honey, sucrose or any other source, would be shown as one listed value. This is good because it starts to get into the quality and composition of the food product, at least indirectly. Many public health experts say ‘sweet creep’ has been a major contributor to obesity, certain cancers, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Fenster comments: “This will likely be wildly controversial, prompting aggressive lobbying efforts that may have already begun. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and other industry groups note that the current label already includes the total amount of sugar in the product. The food industry argues that natural sugar and added sugar are chemically identical and that the body doesn’t differentiate between the two. However, a significant amount of research shows this is not completely true.”
Michael Fenster, M.D., F.A.C.C., FSCA&I, PEMBA, is a board-certified cardiologist and former Assistant Professor of Medicine at the NEOUCOMM. He worked his way up to executive chef before medical school and later received his culinary degree in gourmet cooking and catering from Ashworth University. His first book Eating Well, Living Better: The Grassroots Gourmet Guide to Good Health and Great Food, is currently available. His next book, The Fallacy of the Calorie is slated for release Fall 2014. More information can be found at www.whatscookingwithdoc.com.
Advertisement
