The US Food and Drug Administration has proposed a new definition of what constitutes a “healthy” food, taking a more holistic look at nutrition and food groups rather than just focusing on a few vitamins, minerals and nutrients.
The proposal has drawn a mixed response from nutritionists, the food industry and public health officials, highlighting the thorny task of broadly regulating something as personal as an individual diet.
The science of nutrition has evolved significantly since the FDA last defined “healthy” in 1994, as has the prevalence of obesity and diet-related diseases.
And because food packaging can have such a strong influence on both consumers and food manufacturers, the FDA believes that a “healthy” label will lead to better products and eating habits.
“It makes sense that they decided to update the definition and make it consistent with the science,” said Marlene Schwartz, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut. “But when you only focus on the healthy and keep quiet about the unhealthy, you’re not having the impact that you could if you really communicated across the spectrum.”
The FDA’s ultimate goal is to reduce the prevalence of diseases that can result from poor diets, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, as well as obesity.
Most Americans eat far more sodium than is recommended, much of it from processed foods, while 80% of Americans don’t eat enough fruits and 90% don’t eat enough vegetables, the agency said.
And so, if the FDA’s goal is to make Americans healthier, some nutritionists say the updated definition misses the mark.
“Most of it is packaged food, processed food that will get this label,” said Joanne Slavin, a nutrition expert and teacher at the University of Minnesota. “It’s putting a lot of effort into something that’s not going to increase fruit and vegetable consumption.”
For nearly 30 years, the FDA’s requirements for what products can be labeled “healthy” have focused on increasing intake of certain nutrients and restricting others. The agency says the interpretation is “out of date.”
the proposed definition clings to some nutrient restrictions that disqualify products high in sodium, saturated fat, and added sugar from being considered unhealthy. But it focuses primarily on encouraging servings from different food groups and nutrient-dense foods rather than a minimum level of vitamin C.
That would be in line with the most recent dietary guidelines, which are updated every five years and were last issued in 2020.
“Good nutrition does not come from the intake of individual nutrients… but from foods with their mix of various nutrients working together in combination,” says the FDA’s proposed definition. “Claims on food packages such as ‘healthy’ can provide quick signals to consumers … to select foods that can help create healthier diets.”
Some of the big winners, if the proposed “healthy” definition is approved, would be eggs, shellfish, nuts and seeds. It is now understood that the fat content of these foods is beneficial, or at least not harmful, considering the other nutrients they provide.
“This proposed definition is more than welcome news for egg lovers as it affirms the science that shows eggs are a nutrient powerhouse,” Emily Metz, president of the American Egg Board, said in a statement.
Currently, only 5% of all packaged foods use the term “healthy” on their labeling, although the FDA says about 14% could use the existing definition. The agency hopes it can encourage food manufacturers to reformulate products to meet the new definition and encourage those that already meet it to use the label.
“This definition has been in progress for six years and will go a long way toward providing clarity for companies that want to include additional information on their packages to support consumer choices,” FMI, the Food Industry Association, said in a statement. release.
But Slavin and others say that mainly benefits large food manufacturers that can afford to update formulas and labels.
“It’s a huge economic burden on small growers and entrepreneurs,” Slavin said. “It really hurts innovators and people who want to sell their fruits, vegetables and grain products that are more regenerative and sustainable.”
In addition to the “healthy” update, the Biden administration is also considering adding “star ratings” or “traffic lights” to packaged foods to signal nutritional content.
Schwartz said that to really make a dent in eating habits, foods high in saturated fat, sodium and added sugar need to have easy-to-understand labels that say so.
“It makes a difference: people will change what they choose,” he said.
The Consumer Brands Association says such front-of-pack labels should remain voluntary or incentive-based.
The process to update “healthy” began in 2015 when the FDA asked the manufacturer of Kind bars to stop calling their product healthy due to the product’s nut fat content; kind replied with a petition to change the definition. The process stalled and was recently revived as part of the White House food and nutrition conference in September.
Slavin maintains that the new definition will remain “misleading” and could lead to lawsuits, because what is healthy for the general population may not apply to certain groups or individuals.
“Nutritional information that’s already there (in the back) is helpful, but putting things up front that are critical isn’t good,” he said. “For us to be playing at the limits of what is healthy for an overfed population is not a game changer at all.”
