Now the Biden administration is proposing a new strategy, rethinking the standards that govern when foods can be labeled “healthy,” and proposing new nutrition labels that would appear on the front of food boxes. Reforms like these could help demystify the food aisles for the vast number of Americans whose understanding of healthy eating is rudimentary, or worse. Or they could just confuse people and invite controversy.
Outdated standards for when food producers can claim their products are healthy exclude some of the best things people can eat, like nuts, seeds and salmon. The Food and Drug Administration proposed last week to emphasize eating fruits, vegetables, dairy, and whole grains. Foods with large amounts of added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat would be disqualified. Although there is still some controversy, for example, the long-standing concern about saturated fats might not be justified — these new standards better reflect current dietary science and common sense.
More controversial is the Biden administration’s plan to develop a front-of-package labeling system, which could deter consumers from buying unhealthy foods. Governments elsewhere have experimented with the idea for years. Chile, for example, requires black warning signs appear in foods that contain high amounts of sugar, sodium, saturated fat, or calories. The Biden administration aims to studies suggestion that these schemes encourage people to reduce the amount of harmful ingredients in what they buy. The new labeling could also prompt food companies to formulate healthier options.
However, the FDA would have to get it right for this plan to pay off. For example, food manufacturers would have little incentive to reformulate their products if front-of-box labeling were optional.
The Biden administration envisions a simple traffic light or star rating scheme, which could not only communicate that certain foods are risky, but also show consumers which options are healthier. But distilling complex and controversial food science research into simple labels has proven difficult. Basing ratings on the presence or absence of a few different nutrients runs the risk of encouraging food manufacturers to create highly processed Franken foods that rate well but aren’t particularly healthy. Creating a more complex algorithm that takes into account many factors—for example, vitamin or fiber content, amount of processing, presence or absence of added sugars—can make the results more difficult to manipulate. But efforts like these have sometimes resulted in questionable results — French fries and other junk food score higher than some canned fruit, for example.
It would be a triumph of public health if the FDA discovered the formula that classifies each food according to its underlying nutritional value, or even if it presented approximate but reliable approximations. But if it fails, it’s best not to confuse consumers with traffic lights leading people in the wrong direction.
