Tweet
FDA Eyes Update on Food Labeling, Portion Sizes
Found this while surfing this morning.
FDA Eyes Update on Food Labeling, Portion Sizes
By Mary Beth Sammons
In an effort to ban misleading “better-for-you” labels on food products and wage war on obesity, the Food and Drug Administration is calling on manufacturers to post vital nutritional information, including calories on the front of packages.
The idea is that many consumers fall into the trap of misleading front food labels. This is especially true for products like ice-cream, chips, cookies and breakfast cereals that catch attention with promises of “healthy” self-endorsements, but mislead with calorie counts and serving sizes.
The deceptive labeling leads consumers to think they are getting fewer calories or more health benefits than they actually are. Unless a consumer turns the package over, it’s impossible to gauge that the 270 calories for a serving size of Ben & Jerry’s is actually just ½ a cup, instead of the typical ice cream bowl American’s are accustomed to.
The goal of the FDA’s new push is to give people a dose of reality before they reach for another handful of chips, and to dispel a longstanding problem: official serving sizes for many packaged foods are just too small, according to an article in "The New York Times".
But some nutritionists say that the more prominent nutrition labeling will have little impact on the growing problem of obesity in America.
“Whether or not the nutritional information is posted on the front, the back, or on a neon sign hanging over each product, this action in itself will not help to fight obesity,” says Cynthia Pasquella, a Los Angeles clinical nutritionist. “The FDA should instead focus on things such as not allowing harmful ingredients like artificial sweeteners, colors, and flavors (essentially man-made chemicals) and genetically modified elements in our food thereby holding large food manufacturers to higher standards. “
Nutritionists claim that there is little research to suggest that increased information will actually be effective at reducing obesity.
“There is much research to suggest that obesity prevention efforts like this backfire, leading to food and body preoccupation, self-hatred, eating disorders, stigmatization and discrimination, repeated cycles of weight loss and regain, and, I suspect, weight gain,” says Linda Bacon, Ph.D. nutrition professor in the Biology Department at City College of San Francisco.
“I would support regulation that increases access to nutritional information, but not in the name of obesity prevention,” Bacon said. “If information is presented as a tool to reduce obesity, people will not be able to use it in a way that supports pleasurable and health-enhancing food choices.”
Other nutritionists and dieticians believe that the issue surrounds meaningful portion sizes, and that a switch to meaningful serving sizes can make an impact on the way American’s eat.
“What will make a difference is a better understanding of serving size,” says Shari Portnoy, a dietician in Miami, Florida, who works with manufacturers to create food product labels. “People need to understand how to read food labels because the biggest problem is that what people think is a serving size, isn't. If it is blatant, people will notice it more.”
She adds: “I think the serving size isn't about psychology, it is what a serving size is meant to be. Our portions have surged out of control so we don't know what a real serving size is. A good example is juice. The bottle is 20 ounces but the serving size says eight ounces."
A trip into a home pantry will easily confirm the serving size conundrum that would puzzle even the experts. Campbell’s “Healthy Request” Home-style Chicken Noodle soup says “98 percent fat free” and just 60 calories per serving. Although the can appears to be a single serving, the food label tells a different story. A portion size is just ½ cup and there are 2.5 servings in the can.
The “Ruffles have Ridges” sour cream and onion chips claim “0 trans fats,” but the 11-chip, 160-calorie serving size is hardly seems enough to satisfy a medium-sized woman, never mind the five-foot, 10-inch average-sized man.
But maybe that’s because Americans really don’t know how much food it takes to “fill themselves up.”
“It would be much more helpful for a campaign that reminds people to stay in touch with their physical hunger,” says Judith Matz, therapist and director for The Chicago Center for Overcoming Overeating, Inc. and co-author of "The Diet Survivor's Handbook: 60 Lessons in Eating, Acceptance and Self-Care."
FDA Eyes Update on Food Labeling, Portion Sizes
By Mary Beth Sammons
In an effort to ban misleading “better-for-you” labels on food products and wage war on obesity, the Food and Drug Administration is calling on manufacturers to post vital nutritional information, including calories on the front of packages.
The idea is that many consumers fall into the trap of misleading front food labels. This is especially true for products like ice-cream, chips, cookies and breakfast cereals that catch attention with promises of “healthy” self-endorsements, but mislead with calorie counts and serving sizes.
The deceptive labeling leads consumers to think they are getting fewer calories or more health benefits than they actually are. Unless a consumer turns the package over, it’s impossible to gauge that the 270 calories for a serving size of Ben & Jerry’s is actually just ½ a cup, instead of the typical ice cream bowl American’s are accustomed to.
The goal of the FDA’s new push is to give people a dose of reality before they reach for another handful of chips, and to dispel a longstanding problem: official serving sizes for many packaged foods are just too small, according to an article in "The New York Times".
But some nutritionists say that the more prominent nutrition labeling will have little impact on the growing problem of obesity in America.
“Whether or not the nutritional information is posted on the front, the back, or on a neon sign hanging over each product, this action in itself will not help to fight obesity,” says Cynthia Pasquella, a Los Angeles clinical nutritionist. “The FDA should instead focus on things such as not allowing harmful ingredients like artificial sweeteners, colors, and flavors (essentially man-made chemicals) and genetically modified elements in our food thereby holding large food manufacturers to higher standards. “
Nutritionists claim that there is little research to suggest that increased information will actually be effective at reducing obesity.
“There is much research to suggest that obesity prevention efforts like this backfire, leading to food and body preoccupation, self-hatred, eating disorders, stigmatization and discrimination, repeated cycles of weight loss and regain, and, I suspect, weight gain,” says Linda Bacon, Ph.D. nutrition professor in the Biology Department at City College of San Francisco.
“I would support regulation that increases access to nutritional information, but not in the name of obesity prevention,” Bacon said. “If information is presented as a tool to reduce obesity, people will not be able to use it in a way that supports pleasurable and health-enhancing food choices.”
Other nutritionists and dieticians believe that the issue surrounds meaningful portion sizes, and that a switch to meaningful serving sizes can make an impact on the way American’s eat.
“What will make a difference is a better understanding of serving size,” says Shari Portnoy, a dietician in Miami, Florida, who works with manufacturers to create food product labels. “People need to understand how to read food labels because the biggest problem is that what people think is a serving size, isn't. If it is blatant, people will notice it more.”
She adds: “I think the serving size isn't about psychology, it is what a serving size is meant to be. Our portions have surged out of control so we don't know what a real serving size is. A good example is juice. The bottle is 20 ounces but the serving size says eight ounces."
A trip into a home pantry will easily confirm the serving size conundrum that would puzzle even the experts. Campbell’s “Healthy Request” Home-style Chicken Noodle soup says “98 percent fat free” and just 60 calories per serving. Although the can appears to be a single serving, the food label tells a different story. A portion size is just ½ cup and there are 2.5 servings in the can.
The “Ruffles have Ridges” sour cream and onion chips claim “0 trans fats,” but the 11-chip, 160-calorie serving size is hardly seems enough to satisfy a medium-sized woman, never mind the five-foot, 10-inch average-sized man.
But maybe that’s because Americans really don’t know how much food it takes to “fill themselves up.”
“It would be much more helpful for a campaign that reminds people to stay in touch with their physical hunger,” says Judith Matz, therapist and director for The Chicago Center for Overcoming Overeating, Inc. and co-author of "The Diet Survivor's Handbook: 60 Lessons in Eating, Acceptance and Self-Care."
Comment