Almost every item in the grocery store is getting a makeover. We're talking 800,000 products. The government, specifically the Food and Drug Administration, is requiring food manufacturers to conform to a new Nutrition Facts Label.
However, this is the government, after all, which generally moves at the pace of molasses in January, so even though the change is in the works, we won't be actually seeing the new labels for two or three years. The FDA says the big food companies have two years to get the new Nutrition Facts label on their products. The small food manufacturers, those with less than $10 million in annual food sales, will have three years to comply.
This is the first time in more then 20 years that the Nutrition Facts Label will be different. The model we're used to seeing has been on products since 1994. There has been one change since then. In 2006 manufacturers were required to include the amount of unnatural, very unhealthy trans fat in a product.
The changes were largely pushed by first lady Michelle Obama, as part of her pet project "Let's Move," a food and exercise awareness program designed to reduced obesity, specifically childhood obesity. The purpose of the new Nutrition Facts Label is in fact, to reduce obesity.
The Nutrition Facts Label will allow the consumer to understand better how unhealthy the food really is. Until now, food manufacturers have been able to cleverly disguise some of the negative health elements of their products. The new rules will improve transparency, and as a result, might drive down sales of those products...unless the food companies can find alternative methods to making consumers think their products are better for them than they actually are...or (gasp!) actually make the products healthier.
Perhaps the most prominent change is the addition of "added sugar." As the phrase suggests, this will be the amount of sweetener that is not naturally occurring in the product. For example, milk contains natural sugar (lactose) but chocolate milk has natural sugar and also a lot of added sugar. Added sugar is arguably the most harmful element of the American diet. These are the so-called "empty calories" because they have no nutritional value whatsoever.
In addition to noting how much added sugar a product contains, the new label will also indicate how much of the daily recommended amount of added sugar that product contains.
Another important change is serving size. The new label will require companies to make a product's serving size true to what it really is. Until now, companies have been able to decide for themselves what a serving size is, and as a result, the serving sizes are ridiculously small. If you are a label-dissecter like me, then you know what I'm talking about.
However, most food companies are banking on the belief that if a consumer looks at the nutrition label, they might not read the fine print, which in this case is the serving size. If you don't know the serving size, and it's unrealistically small, the food company can trick you into thinking their product is healthier than it really is and you'll buy it.
An example is a bag of small cookies listing a serving size as 3 cookies! Most people eat at least 20 at a time. Another example is ice cream. Many manufacturers list their serving size as half a cup. Nobody eats that small of a serving of ice cream!
Same thing goes for a serving size of cereal as 3/4 cup, macaroni and cheese 1/2 cup, give me a break. Another big offender are the beverages: soft drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks. A 12-ounce bottle will list the serving size as 8-ounces. Nobody drinks 8 ounces. They drink the entire 12.
The reason manufacturers have erred on the side of small serving sizes is because the serving size is what everything else is based on. For example, the calories, the sugar, the fat, are all "PER SERVING." So if the serving size is really small, the calories, sugar, fat will be low.
The key here is food manufacturers are hoping consumers won't notice the unrealistically small serving size and multiply the sugar and calories to the number of servings they will actually consume. They hope instead they will just see those low calories, fat and sugar grams, incorrectly assume the product is pretty healthy, and buy it. The food companies are largely correct in their assumption and for the most part, successful in their ruse.
Now, however, 12-ounce beverages will be required to make a serving size 12 ounces and put the calories, fat and sugar on the label to reflect a 12-ounce serving size. Ouch. When consumers get a look at those numbers they may put that drink back on the shelf.
Same with ice cream, cookies, macaroni, etc. When people see the true serving sizes and the actual amount of fat, sugar and calories in each serving, folks may think twice about eating these items. Good for consumers' health, bad for processed food sales.
The first lady joked while announcing the changes at a health summit early Friday that "very soon you will no longer need a microscope, a calculator or a degree in nutrition to figure out whether the food you're buying is actually good for our kids."
Do people really look at those labels anyway? Yes. According to research, nearly 8 out of 10 Americans look at food labels. That's quite an increase since 2002, when less than half did.
So good for Michelle Obama and the FDA, I say. I'm not usually in favor of government intervention. I'm definitely against outlawing certain foods and drinks. This is still America, home of the free. However, we do need to have accurate information provided to us about what's in those foods and drinks and based on that decide for ourselves whether to eat or drink them, and if so, how much and under what circumstances.
According to Susan Mayne, director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, "The intention is not to tell consumers what to eat, but rather to make sure they have the tools and accurate information they need to choose foods that are right for themselves and their families."