Food labeling regulations changing - The Federal Front

On November 27,1991, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published proposed parallel regulations for mandatory nutrition labeling on food. FDA also published a final regulation on voluntary nutrition labeling, while FSIS published a proposed regulation on voluntary nutrition labeling. The two agencies estimate the costs of changing nutrition labels to be $2.8 billion. But the health benefits--estimated at $5.6 billion over a period of 20 years--greatly exceed these costs.

These efforts represent both agencies' responses to over a decade of consumer demand for better nutrition information on food. After a 90-day period for public comments, final rules are expected to be published by November 1992. New labels will be required on most packaged food products beginning May 1993.

Present Labels a Source of Confusion

As awareness of the link between diet and health increases, consumers have expressed more concern about food choices. Industry has responded by developing healthier' foods and by labeling the nutrition content, on a largely voluntary basis, for approximately half the processed food products sold.

However, consumers have complained that the ingredient and nutrition information available on food labels is not always useful. For example, many products do not list cholesterol and fiber contents, nutrients of interest to many consumers today. And, differences in serving sizes make it difficult to compare the nutrition content of different products. Consumers also perceive health claims and product descriptors as confusing, such as when a product high in saturated fat is labeled as "low in cholesterol," or when a product light in color or texture is labeled as "light."

The absence of nutrition labeling on nearly half of all packaged foods, or labeling that is confusing, may partially explain the results of a recent study by USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS). The study found that groups of women with higher diet/health awareness changed their food selections but did not reduce total fat intake much more than other women. The study suggests that the women had difficulties making comparisons across food categories, and basically traded one source of fat for another (see "Diet/Health Concerns About Fat Intake" in the January/March 1991 issue of FoodReview). Thus, they were not successful in following USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines to reduce consumption of fat.

If most food products contain clear and consistent nutrition labels, motivated consumers should find it easier to make changes in their food choices. For example, most consumers probably do not know how much fat a serving of 2-percent milk contains. But many have been able to translate the message to reduce fat intake by shifting consumption from whole milk to lowfat or skim milk.

Current Regulations

FSIS regulates the labeling of meat and poultry products, and FDA regulates the labels on all other food products. Both agencies have allowed manufacturers to include nutrition information, if it follows a prescribed format. However, nutrition labeling is required only if a nutrition claim is made, or, for FDA products, if a nutrient has been added to a food.

It is estimated that some 60 percent of FDA-regulated foods and 35-50 percent of processed, packaged meat and poultry products bear nutrition labels. Such labeling is not usually available on eggs, fresh produce, fresh or frozen meats, poultry, and seafood, or on foods sold in restaurants, fast food places, institutions, vending machines, and grocery store carryout bars. In addition, labels now provide information on some nutrients which are no longer of public health importance (such as the B vitamins), but are not required to provide information on nutrients of current interest to consumers, such as saturated fat, cholesterol, and fiber.

Background for New Labeling Regulations

In 1989, FSIS and the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences to make recommendations on nutrition labeling (see "A comparison of Nutrition Labeling Regulations and Positions" for details). On July 19, 1990, FDA published a proposal for new regulations in the Federal Register. Before FDA finalized these regulations, however, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA), which amends the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, to make nutrition labeling mandatory for most FDA-regulated foods. FDA proposed regulations to implement this law on November 27,1991. These regulations should become effective by spring 1993. They represent the first major change in FDA nutrition labeling regulations since their origin in 1973.

Although the NLEA does not cover meat and poultry products, FSIS has been working with FDA to develop parallel regulations for these products. FSIS published tentative positions for nutrition labeling as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the April 2, 1991, Federal Register. Keeping pace with FDA, FSIS also published proposed regulations for nutrition labeling in the November 27, 1991, Federal Register. FSIS proposes to establish mandatory nutrition labeling for processed meat and poultry products and to issue voluntary guidelines for nutrition information for single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products.

Throughout the process of preparing these regulations, FDA has held public meetings around the country, often in conjunction with FSIS, to obtain input from both the public and the food industry.

Both sets of proposed regulations have a 90-day period for public comment, after which the final regulations will be prepared. (See "A Comparison of Nutrition Labeling Regulations and Positions" for a comparison of current regulations, the National Academy of Sciences' IOM recommendations, and FDA and FSIS proposals for nutrition labeling.)

The two agencies have emphasized their commitment to work together and provide consumers with the most uniform label possible. Thus, FSIS proposes to adopt the list of nutrients adopted by FDA, to define serving sizes consistent with those defined by FDA, and to follow the same definitions for product descriptors, such as "lowfat," "free," "light," and "reduced."

USDA proposes two additional descriptors unique to meat and poultry: "lean" and "extra lean." FSIS believes consumers need additional descriptors unique to meat and poultry, since these products tend to be higher in fat and cholesterol than many nonmeat products (thus few would be able to meet FDA's definition for lowfat and low-cholesterol). Since the amount of fat and cholesterol may vary greatly in meat and poultry products, unique descriptors would help characterize the fat level of these products and would help consumers make better informed selections.

The Controversy Over "Trans-Fatty" Acids

The new nutrition labels aim to inform consumers without confusing them. But as new information becomes available on the complexities of the diet/health links, a number of scientists question whether the new labels will be too simplistic to be useful.

For example, some recent studies indicate that dietary trans-fatty acids, like saturated fats, may be associated with increased serum cholesterol levels. Trans-fatty acids occur when a vegetable oil (a polyunsaturated fat) is hydrogenated or solidified into shortening, margarine, or commercial fats for deep frying.

Under the proposed regulations, the amount of trans-fatty acids will not be included in the information on saturated fats on food labels since the oil is not completely saturated during hydrogenation. Canada's labeling standards

recognize trans-fatty acids as separate components, and require the amounts to be listed on food labels. Should FDA and FSIS change the regulations to do the same?

Are the Costs Worth It?

Costs of changing nutrition labeling are difficult to quantify, as are the health benefits associated with such changes. For FDA-regulated products, about 17,000 firms and 257,000 labels will be affected, with total costs to packaged-food producers running approximately $1.3 billion. Voluntary labeling in supermarkets and restaurants is estimated to cost $155 million and $116 million, respectively. For USDA-regulated products, nearly 9,000 federally- and State-inspected plants would be affected, at a cost of approximately $1.3 billion. Therefore, total cost for all affected businesses is estimated to be approximately $2.8 billion.

Analysts estimate that the new labeling regulations would save up to a staggering $5.6 billion over 20 years in death and health care costs related to cancer and coronary heart disease alone (the two largest public health problems in the United States). Decreased rates of cancer, coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, obesity, and hypertension are just a few of the benefits we would expect to see with mandatory labeling regulations. These benefits--measured as the monetary value of years of life saved from premature death--are estimated to greatly exceed the costs. The benefits were calculated using a study of how consumer behavior changes in response to additional nutrition information and were based on only the two largest public health problems, cancer and coronary heart disease.

COPYRIGHT 1991 U.S. Department of Agriculture
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group