The Truth Behind Nutrition Labels

            In the past 20 years, there have been disturbing trends in the food industry in order to create profits for large companies without any regards to consumer health. Food is marketed manipulatively in order to trick consumers into thinking they are purchasing a product that is more nutritious and higher quality than it really is. This is accomplished using several tactics such as manipulating serving sizes, label padding, and disguising dangerous ingredients on the nutrition facts labels. Instead of forcing food companies to produce healthier products, the Obama administration is working with the FDA to redesign the original Nutrition Facts label in order to better educate us as consumers about the garbage that is put in our food. With obesity and malnutrition on the rise, food companies need to stop creating products that are killing us, and at minimum, all food products need to be labeled in such a way that empowers consumers make healthy decisions instead of unhealthy decisions. That is, if we all want to live a higher quality of life and stop spending so much money on health care.

            In 2008, 54% of consumers reported that they “often” read a food label the first time they purchase a product (FDA). Therefore, it is essential that the label be straight forward and without any gimmicks. Labels are difficult to read accurately when many food companies manipulate serving sizes. For example, when you read “ZERO trans fats” on the front of a food package, that means it does not contain ANY trans fats, right? Wrong. Food companies can label any food containing 0 – 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving as 0 grams trans fat. Now imagine they have shrank the serving size down to one cookie, and the package contains 30 cookies. If each cookie contained .5 grams of trans fats, once you finish your package of cookies, you will have consumed 15 grams of trans fats although the front of the package says “ZERO trans fats”. It doesn’t seem like that should be legal, does it?

Another gimmick used today is called “label padding”. What some food companies will do is add a fraction of a “healthy” ingredient to their product (usually listed near the end of the ingredients list in which it really has no significant health value at all) in order to put in big bold letters on the front of their product that it contains this “healthy” ingredient. Tricky, tricky.

Not only do they trick us consumers into thinking their products have “healthy” ingredients, but they also try to disguise the dangerous ingredients contained in their products. They do this by calling them a more “innocent-sounding” name. For example, nobody would want to eat strawberry yogurt if the ingredients listed, “insect-based red food coloring” on the label, so instead, they just call it “carmine.” Another example is how they use “yeast extract” instead of “mono-sodium glutamate” (which is a chemical taste enhancer used to excite the flavors of overly-processed foods). If you think that’s bad, how would you feel if I told you that a “fruit” product doesn’t even have to contain a molecule of fruit? Many food companies will do this to trick gullible consumers into thinking their hydrogenated oils and artificial food coloring chemicals are actually a delicious and healthy choice for you and your family. It’s time we open our eyes and start asking more questions.

Below is an example of our current Nutrition Facts label (left) compared against the proposed Nutrition Facts label (right). The most controversial update is the added sugars column.

Currently, the food companies are pushing back against adding this column because it would reveal many of their current sugar disguises. “The American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugars to less than 100 calories daily for women and 150 calories daily for men. Randomized clinical trials and epidemiological studies have shown that individuals who consume higher amounts of added sugar, especially sugar-sweetened beverages, tend to gain more weight and have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemias, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease (CVD)” (Yang 517). Because this is known, food companies should not be able to make these products without informing us as consumers.

It is great that the FDA is wanting to address the tricks of the food trade, but we are not solving the problem here. A potential problem with the proposed label is that not all consumers understand the health costs of added sugars. “We conducted an on-line survey (N=1000) to assess how consumers interpret added sugar on the NFP. With the current NFP, only 5% of consumers inaccurately identified the amount of sugar in a cereal label, whereas, when added sugar was included on the label this increased to 36% inaccurate responses” (Bertino 11). This brings to question whether or not making the label more advanced would help the ordinary consumer, or if it would only help those with a background knowledge of nutrition. Later in Bertino’s study, it is noted that, “when presented with two labels and asked to pick the healthier option, over one-third chose a food with lower added sugar, even though it contained higher calories, fat, and saturated fat” (13). This leaves some hope for the new label, but there are still obvious flaws.

            As consumers, we cannot support the food companies that are deceiving us if we want to make any progress. These companies are prominent in our everyday lives, and their products are accessible at our fingertips. We need to get involved in the passing of new food safety and label laws in order to correct our current problematic system. Before purchasing food products, do your research and don’t be fooled by the gimmicks that many gullible consumers fall into. Healthy options are on the market, and you are worth finding them.

References

Bertino, Mary, and DeAnn Liska. "Added-sugar labeling: implications for consumers." The FASEB Journal 28: 630.11. Web. 11 July 2014.

"Proposed Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label." Foods. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 28 May 2014. Web. 12 July 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/Food/>.

Yang, Quanhe, and Zefeng Zhang. "Added Sugar Intake and Cardiovascular Diseases Mortality Among US Adults." JAMA Internal Medicine 174: 516-524. Web. 11 July 2014.