FDA recently put out two announcements. One is notice about consumer research FDA is conducting about Front of Package (FOP) Labeling on Packaged Goods.
This follows earlier announcements and focus group research conducted, to determine how consumers perceive various formats of labeling. Various types of FOP have been used in the US and other countries, and there’s some research to suggest they are helpful to consumers. This is important to consider, as developing and placing the FOP on packaged foods is great expense, and if it does not help in choosing a healthier diet, we should put our resources elsewhere. These initiatives do at times drive changes in packaged food composition as manufacturers look to be able to use claims to sell their products.
You may have seen a headline about a proposed FOP which identified Lucky Charms cereal as healthier than steak. The FOP (or a number rating how healthy a food is) was developed by a group from Tufts University and presented at the recent White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health. I don’t have the details on how the rating system works, but in general it seemed to perform ok-with fruits and vegetables rating well, for instance. However, another group of researchers used the system to show that the cereal rated better than steak. I don’t know why this would be-perhaps the cereal gained points for being fortified and low in fat, where the steak was high in saturated fat.
These examples show the difficulty in coming up with one number to judge a food’s healthfulness. It is also hard to know if consumers how consumers will use these systems over time, vs. how they use them during a shorter term study. I’ve never been a fan for these systems as “the answer” for helping people choose healthy foods. However, I am willing to consider this new effort as a potentially useful tool to be used with other information, e.g. the nutrition facts panel and ingredients list. Any symbol showing up on packaged foods is a ways off, but may be something we’ll need to understand for use with program participants in the future. I also believe many of these tools are more helpful in comparing among products than in looking at individual foods. E.g. comparing two ready-to-eat cereals (how much added sugar to they contain? Are they a good source of fiber?)
A second announcement is FDA’s continued effort to reduce the presence of lead in baby foods. This is part of their Closer to Zero initiative, to reduce contaminants in food-especially foods for infants and young children, who are vulnerable to health effects of these contaminants. They are starting with lead, but also looking at arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Many contaminants come from contamination in the soil and water where crops are gone, so efforts at reduction are not simply in the manufacturing process. Most of what I have seen on this so far is not considering mandatory levels, but working to better understand exposure and partnering with industry to reduce the levels to as “close to zero” as possible.
I do think recent FDA actions, and the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health do indicate the government is taking a more active role in the healthfulness of our food supply, which is good to see. We will also see if it alters the way in which the US Dietary Guidelines are developed. The committee for the 2025 guidelines has just been announced. Similar to the last version, the topics for the committee are to be determined ahead of time, but this time there has also been discussion from the government on addressing sustainability-which is also nice to see.