Food companies want to confuse consumers. The FDA must push back.

The “Make America Healthy Again” agenda has catapulted nutrition issues to the forefront of conversations about Americans’ health. The policy proposals range from getting junk foods out of schools to preventing the government from subsidizing candy through programs like SNAP.

To advance these policies, we need a clear system of labeling unhealthy junk foods in the food supply. The Food and Drug Administration is considering implementing this type of labeling system, but the food industry is trying to interfere.

Warning labels signaling when foods are high in salt, added sugar and saturated fat can help consumers easily identify which foods they should limit. And studies have shown that these labels lead people to make healthier food choices. This type of label could also pave the way for other nutrition policies by clearly flagging foods not eligible for SNAP or to be served in schools.

Ten countries already require such labels, and the National Academy of Medicine first recommended them in the U.S. more than 14 years ago. The FDA recently submitted a proposed front-of-package labeling rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This proposed rule takes us one step closer to advancing a strong front-of-package labeling policy.

The food industry, however, is fighting tooth and nail to ensure a rule is never finalized, or that the labels FDA adopts are ineffective.

The food industry playbook is predictable. Food companies criticize the science supporting front-of-package labeling, delay public consultation periods, push for their own confusing label designs and emphasize the possible harms of a mandatory labeling policy. Food companies have deployed these tactics to avoid effective labeling policies around the globe for decades.

In the U.S., food industry trade groups consistently argue that the FDA is “fast-tracking” its nutrition labeling work, even though the FDA held its first public meeting on the topic all the way back in 2007.

In the public discourse, food companies are making distracting arguments about the possible harms of a clear front-of-package labeling policy, arguing that such labels may hurt the economy, raise food prices, scare consumers or lead to shame when selecting certain foods. None of these arguments are supported by scientific evidence.

The food industry also continues to promote its own voluntary labeling system, called Facts Up Front, to avoid a more effective labeling policy. Facts Up Front labels convey nutrition information through percentages and daily values, and many studies show these labels confuse even the most educated consumers.

In addition, labels with only numbers and percentages do not clearly communicate whether a certain type of food should be limited or not. That means Facts Up Front can’t be used to easily implement other nutrition policies, such as limiting unhealthy foods served to kids in schools.

The food industry has used similar tactics in France, Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, where they consistently promoted their own labels while discrediting the more effective labels proposed by public health scientists.

Before the Facts Up Front labeling system, the food industry implemented a “Smart Choices” label to identify healthier products for consumers. That label was placed on Cookie Crisp cereal and Fudgsicles. That’s what will happen again if we leave food labeling up to industry.

In contrast to Facts Up Front, warning labels or “high-in” labels, which highlight high amounts of sodium, saturated fat and added sugar, do the best job of helping consumers quickly judge a food’s nutritional quality. This type of labeling system clearly delineates foods to limit, making it easier to implement policies that reduce children’s access to junk foods while sending a consistent message to consumers.

Chile took this approach by requiring warning labels on foods high in calories, sodium, saturated fat and added sugar, and then prohibiting labeled products from being sold in schools or marketed to kids. Chilean children are now seeing fewer junk food ads, and Chilean parents are making healthier food purchases for their kids.

We need a mandatory, eye-catching front-of-package food label that clearly communicates which products to limit. Americans deserve it and should not need to wait another 15 years to see it.

Christina A. Roberto, Ph.D., is the Mitchell J. Blutt and Margo Krody Blutt Presidential Associate Professor of Health Policy and director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Alyssa J. Moran, ScD, MPH, RD, is the director of Policy and Research Strategy at the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Marissa G. Hall, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Health Behavior in the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

Topics

How food brands, drugmakers are responding to FDA's ban of food dye Red 3

Food manufacturers will have until 2027 to stop using the dye. Drugmakers have until 2028.
CBS News - 5d
FDA Bans Red Dye 3 in Foods, Linking It to Cancer in Rats

Consumer and food safety groups have long urged the agency to revoke the use of this dye and others. The F.D.A. says studies have shown that it causes cancer in rats, but not in humans.
The New York Times - 6d
FDA Bans Artificial Dye Red 3 From Food

Consumer-advocacy groups petitioned the agency to restrict the additive, which has been linked to cancer in animals.
The Wall Street Journal - 6d
FDA bans use of Red No. 3 dye in food, drinks

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is moving to ban the use of Red No. 3 dye in food products.
ABC News - 6d
FDA bans red dye No. 3 from foods

U.S. regulators are banning the dye called Red 3 from the food supply
ABC News - 6d
FDA Moves Forward With Last-Minute Push to Cut Nicotine Levels in Cigarettes

In the final days of the Biden administration, the F.D.A. is moving ahead with a proposal to require companies to produce a less addictive product for traditional smokers.
The New York Times - 6d
FDA sets limits on lead in some baby foods

But consumer advocates say the Food and Drug Administration's new guidance on lead limit in baby food doesn't go far enough.
CBS News - Jan. 6
FDA limits toxic lead in some baby foods

The FDA set maximum levels for lead in baby foods like jarred fruit, yogurts and dry cereal, part of an effort to reduce kids’ exposure to the toxic metal.
NBC News - Jan. 6
Michael Moss breaks down new FDA rules for "healthy" food labels

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Moss explains the FDA's new rules for "healthy" food labels, limits on added sugars, and the push for alcohol warning labels.
CBS News - Jan. 6