Are Food Labels Too Complicated?
Lawmakers like to force producers of foods and food supplements to put all kinds of information and warnings on their products, thinking that they are helping to "inform the consumer". But this may not be so at all.
“We went from virtually nothing to information overload", says Kimberly Lord Stewart, author of “Eating Between the Lines,” a how-to book on interpreting food labels.Researchers from the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences have found that only half of all the consumers even look at the nutrition labels, and the vast majority of those limits their curiosity to answering the question: "How many calories does this food have". In the end, much of the information that is being put on labels is simply not read - it becomes more of a distraction than a useful help for making food decisions.
On the other side, we see limits to the availability of healthful substances - vitamins and minerals - as decreed in Europe by the infamous food supplements directive and under preparation in the US by the FDA through "adverse events reporting", as well as the absolutely stunning yearly figures of death by medicine. But as long as processed foods are being preferred over healthy organic produce, as long as altered fats destroy our metabolic balance and artificial sweeteners, cloned animals and GM ingredients are being promoted as "harmless", there is no wonder the majority of us are sick and health insurance can't keep up with the costs of hospitals and medication.
Food labeling today seems worse than useless, because it provides an alibi to legislators: "we have done all we could" to ensure consumer health, when the really big issues that destroy our health are festering underneath the glossy veneer. When you read the article presenting the research, note that the creators of "nutrition labeling" know that people don't read what has been so generously put there, but they also have no idea of what to do about it.
Are people perhaps looking for real food, rather than for information that makes the artificial kind more palatable?
- - -
Less is more for label readers, research shows
(see original article here)
In this photo released from the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, a would-be consumer checks the calorie count on a box of cookies – Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007. UF research shows that most people check nutrition labels for how a food product might affect their waistline, rather than taking into account a larger nutritional picture. (Tom Wright, University of Florida/IFAS)
Apparently, most grocery-store goers shop for what they don’t want. Of course, they don’t want calories. But what about looking for the good stuff — the vitamins, nutrients, and other goodies listed on the side of the package?
According to researchers from the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, just over half of the shopping populace examines nutrition labels. However, the vast majority of shoppers look primarily at calorie counts to see how selections will affect their waistline — rather than evaluating how foods will fit into their nutritional bottom line.
“In a country that is — and, quite frankly, needs to be — concerned about weight issues, the fact that people look at calories isn’t a bad thing,” said Ron Ward, the UF researcher who, along with graduate student Carlos Jauregui, produced the findings. “However, this does tell us that we can do a lot more to inform the consumer and give them a bigger picture of how their product choices affect their health.”
Ward and Jauregui investigated how and why people use nutrition labels by analyzing more than a decade’s worth of self-recorded information kept by tens of thousands of U.S. households. The labels became mandatory in May 1994 and how they’re used has changed little since then.
The fact that calorie count is and always has been the primary concern is no surprise, said Burkey Belser, who designed the modern U.S. nutrition label. That’s why it’s the most prominent number on the label.
“People were making choices based off the claims on the front of the box and whatever other knowledge they could scrape together on their own,” Belser said. “We wanted a simple design that would quickly give people both what they need and want. We were very much aware of the rising tide of obesity at the time, so prominently displaying calorie count fit — and still fits — both of those.
“Unfortunately, people like to stop reading after the first line of a story,” he said. “You’ve got to hope that they will have the curiosity to read on.”
The problem is that people don’t know what else to look for, said Kimberly Lord Stewart, author of “Eating Between the Lines,” a how-to book on interpreting food labels.
“We went from virtually nothing to information overload,” she said.
For example, a cereal box may claim in big letters that it reduces cholesterol. However, in small print it also says that the average person needs three grams of fiber to statistically have a chance to reduce cholesterol, she said. “Look on the side, and the label will probably say that each serving only has one gram or less.”
And despite more than a decade of federally mandated nutrition labels, the big words on the front of the box often trump the small ones on the side. Ward and Jauregui’s research shows that those who have developed brand loyalties typically only check the product name instead of scrutinizing the label for nutritional content.
The pair have presented their research at several conferences — including last year’s American Economic Association annual meeting — and are preparing a paper based on selected portions of their work. Among their other findings: the poor pay slightly more attention to nutrition labels than the wealthy; people in the South are more likely to use nutrition labels than their Northern counterparts; and, for most people, where food was produced is of little importance.
Source: University of Florida
See also:When It Comes to GM Food, Some Say Ignorance is Bliss
Food Labels 'Confuse' Consumers
New food labels in Australia 'confusing'
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Wednesday February 21 2007
updated on Wednesday December 8 2010URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/02/21/are_food_labels_too_complicated.htm
Related ArticlesCrime and Nutrition
Tjarko Holtjer, a friend in the Netherlands who runs a well fed multilingual website about health freedom, nutrition issues and more, has sent an article which I would like to pass on. Criminal behaviour and violence depend very much on nutrition. Some vitamins or essential minerals - if out of balance - can make the difference between a sane fellow and a violent criminal. Same thing at school - nutrition... [read more]
October 15, 2003 - Sepp HasslbergerCodex: FDA 'Vetoes' Optimal Nutrition For Health
Just a month ago today, at the Codex Alimentarius Food Labelling Committee meeting in Ottawa, Canada, the US delegate Dr Barbara Schneeman said that no reference should be made to "optimizing nutrition and health" in guidelines that would encourage "adequate information" on food labels. A Codex Committee meeting - Image by Sepp The Committee was discussing how the World Health Organization's Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health should... [read more]
June 04, 2006 - Sepp HasslbergerThe Dark Side of Precaution: Preventing Prevention
The precautionary principle mandates intervention to save the environment and - most importantly - our health from degradation in the case of a pressing danger, even if all the scientific data are not yet on hand. It is invoked when we face threats from chemicals, radiation or other causes. The principle seems important, yet it is difficult to find an authoritative definition. The European Union has issued a communication in... [read more]
July 09, 2006 - Sepp HasslbergerCodex: Labelling Committee Asked to Allow Information on Food Preventive Effects
The Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling in its recent meeting in Montreal, Canada, heard a proposal of the Republic of South Africa, to re-think its rules which prohibit food manufacturers saying or implying that a food may aid in the prevention or cure of a disease. Although various foods clearly do prevent and even cure diseases, any claims for such effects are strictly limited to pharmaceutical products registered as... [read more]
May 25, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerHR 4282: Act Aims To Revolutionize Nutritional Health Information
HR 4282, an act introduced by US Congressman Ron Paul on November 10 aims to turn the tables on the FDA. According to the bill's sponsors and a wide coalition of consumers, physicians, nutritional practitioners and producers of supplements, the FDA has been keeping vital health information from the public by insisting that only medicines, not foods, can claim to have any influence on disease. This position has long been... [read more]
November 16, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerBig Mac fails the test
Time and again we hear from officials that we need not worry about supplementing vitamins, our normal food contains all our bodies could ever desire. Not so, I say. At least not for the millions around the world who eat fast food with any regularity. Someone actually checked it out. He ate nothing but McDonalds food for a month, three meals a day. Here is the story, published in the... [read more]
January 27, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
