Should Front-of-Package Food Labels Be Banned?

Of course, one way to get around all this balderdash is simply to buy nothing whatsoever in labeled packages. Just get your potatoes, apples, watermelons, whatever from open stock. Of course, it ain't that simple; even the apples have gooey labels that you have to scrape off with a potato peeler....

One of the earliest microbrewers was Bert Grant, in Yakima, WA, USA. Because of whatever dopey regulations, he couldn't advertise the nutritional and vitamin constituents of beer (yeah, after you drink some, you have to take a whiz due to the vitamin P in it).

I can hardly wait until we get UL-listed (or ISO 900xxxx) foodstuffs. I'm sure that will make me feel better. Or maybe not.

No need to wait for the UL or ISO. We already have the FDA. They regulate, for example, the specific criteria that allow suppliers to say "source," "good source," or "excellent source" of a particular nutrient, and they watchdog the clarity of information on labels by making sure that all the letters in the ingredients list are at least 1/16" high, and the dot on lower-case i's does not count for letter height (exceptions to the height may be granted for small labels on small packages). This is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg on FDA label requirements.

FDA........thats sounds like government burearacy.....FDA is run by lobbyists.

p911

In my opinion 100% of the labeling on the front of food packaging is marketing hype just trying to get you to buy product and it is not intended for your own good or health - nor are the claims legitimate.

Believe nothing you read on the front of a package, especially cereal. Turn the box over, scan the nutrition label and then go directly to the list of ingredients. That is what should be posted on the front of the box - the ingredients! If everyone was aware of just how much additives and preservatives were in some of the foods they consume perhaps they would stop purchasing them.

The next time you are in the grocery store pick up a few items and scan ingredient labels. I am amazed at the amount of ingredients in a so called healthy frozen "Lean Cuisine" dinner! And people are fooled into thinking that stuff is good for them?

For example, flavored oatmeal - why does it contain ingredients such as: sugar (usually the 2nd ingredient), salt, natural & artificial flavors, corn syrup (hello!), partially hydrogenated cottonseed and/or soybean oil (is it one oil, or is it both?) and so on. There are probably close to 20 ingredients in there. Whatever happened to good old fashioned whole grain rolled oats!? Oh yeah, people think plain oatmeal tastes bad (sorta like broccoli?) and all that "other" stuff in flavored varieties is delicious?

If everyone was aware of just how much additives and preservatives were in some of the foods they consume perhaps they would stop purchasing them.

Amen to that. And I believe that's the crux of the matter. No matter what information is on the label, most people will not be able to, um, digest it properly.

All the right information is already in front of our faces---an abundance of processed foods, saturated fats, and sugary drinks does not make for a healthy diet. Yet despite having this info at hand, most people will not structure their diets accordingly.

I'm always amazed when friends reach for a diet soda, claiming the low calorie content is so beneficial, without inspecting the incredibly long list of chemicals they are consuming. I'd rather have a real soda _{(but I tend toward water or java)} instead of something that contains ingredients guaranteed to give cancer to a stone.

It is a shame. So many people have been brainwashed into thinking so many things are good for them when the opposite is true.

Diet soda, diet this and diet that, reduced fat, reduced sugar.........sure it sounds good if you leave it at that and look no further. But everyone of them has a trade off and the consumer is not the winner here.

I am sure we have all heard of the benefits of drinking green tea. I picked up a bottle in the super market a couple weeks ago. Green tea was the 6th ingredient! Now tell me how can they call that green tea?

If that is the case "Fruit Loops" should be called "Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Loops" (the 7th of maybe 39 other ingredients? - hard to count them all with the "and/ors" within the list). And of course sugar is the #1 ingredient - How about Sugar Loops?

Just what are we feeding the kids of America.........and more importantly where has it gotten us?

Have you watched Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution? The series just started in America and premiered last Friday and works on reforming school lunches. It is quite appalling the lengths Jamie has to go through to get the parents and students to realize that what the students are eating are junk. I would highly recommend that anyone watch it. Very informative.

I remember seeing the promo for it but forgot to watch it. Hopefully I don't forget this week, it did look very interesting.

I hope some good can come out of it. I would expect it to open some eyes but sadly there are those will prefer to ignore it.

I don't know if the programme you have in the US is the UK one, or one about his experiences in the US. We've heard he's having a harder time in the US than he had in his home country! And they say prophets aren't welcome in their own country.

The long term effects of his work is that in schools where this has been applied, exams marks are rising.

"...The long term effects of his work is that in schools where this has been applied, exams marks are rising..."

reference/link please?

If that was with the leftover parts...such as bones, skin and fat from a chicken........I saw that. And they ground it up, and made patties out of them.

One has to also realize in all the junk there is value.

By the way, stuff in sausages or hot dogs....they use to call these by-products

Americans do not need this, there is already too much fat/protein and other in our diet the way it is......but it is interesting where they can extract some of this protien out of.

The biggest problem in this country (USA), where there is nothing wasted such as the componets in whey, what use to be waste.

p911

"flavored oatmeal - why does it contain ingredients such as: sugar ..... "

The simple answer is because they sell more of it that way.

Plain oatmeal may be more healthful than the sugared/salted/flavored varieties, but not everyone agrees it tastes better. If it tasted the same, manufacturers would probably have not noticed an increase in sales as the products were presented to the public.

I am against most processed foods and high sugar content foods too (even though I eat them from time to time). I do not like the taste of plain oatmeal. It's better than dirt.....but not something I would choose to eat on a regular basis. However, I do like the taste of cinnamon/raisin variety of oatmeal, yet don't eat it because of what's in it.

Hi JBTardis,

It may be safe to say I am in the minority on this one.

I love plain oatmeal and it is usually a part of 4 meals throughout my day. I can eat it all day - straight up and plain. But once in awhile I do enjoy sprinkling a little cinnamon on it for a little extra flavor or stevia to add some sweetness to it.

There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has different preferences which makes our world more interesting.

If I could convince myself it was healthy, I would eat sandwiches every meal. I like them that much.

Why not buy plain oatmeal and add your own raisins and cinnamon?

Sorted

I forgot to mention fresh or frozen blueberries added to some plain oatmeal is delicious too - and blueberries are a great natural anti-oxidant.

That's a good idea. I

hate to admit it, but in the mornings I'm either too lazy or it's too difficult to get out of bed in time to do so. I usually eat breakfast at work and bacon and eggs are more appealing to me than oatmeal/cinnamon/raisins.

I am fitter and healthier when I have time consistently to cook an egg & bacon breakfast (no added fat!). It's probably because a) I work better on a high protein, low carb diet and b) it fills me up so I'm not snacking all morning!

"For example, flavored oatmeal - why does it contain ingredients such as: sugar..."

Is that your breakfast this morning? Otherwise it's pretty amazing that you recall the ingredients of this product.

I don't think you give people enough credit. Most people I talk to are at least somewhat aware of the many ingredients in different store bought meals. Personally, I used to eat frozen dinners in college until I read the nutrition label. Some of the products had up to 80% of your daily intake of sodium. Should we trade a slim waist for a heart attack?

I really don't think it's even legal to falsely advertise your product the way this thread implies. You have to read the fine print because usually the full explanation is on there. I don't blame companies for trying to sell their product. If you were trying to sell your car, would you post an ad in the newspaper that the car had been in 15 accidents or that it only has 50,000 miles on it?

I say you have to read the fine print because a lot of these cereals advertise something like "Helps lower cholesterol." Usually when I'm half asleep and eating that cereal in the morning I get bored and read the box. On the box it says that eating the cereal as part of a well balanced diet and exercise COULD help lower cholesterol. I don't buy the cereal because it lowers my cholesterol; I buy the cereal because it's quick and easy to fix in the morning and it tastes good.

Hi cingold,

Just to clarify I do not eat "flavored" I eat plain and sometimes I will add cinnamon, frozen blueberries or stevia - period.

The extensive list of ingredients I "recalled" I simply referenced from a google ingredients lists for apple/cinnamon flavored oatmeal.

Good point on frozen dinners - I would not recommend them to anyone. But easy beats healthy far too many times.

Marketing no matter for what or by whom is going to over-shadow the bad and highlight the good (yes - just as I would mention low miles on my car not the # of accidents).

The truth is always in the fine print, at least it should be. But people just need to have the common sense to look there and not be taken in by the books cover.

Afterall almost every weight loss gimic/pill etc. marketed will mention in fine print "combined with diet and exercise". With proper diet & exercise you do not need any gimics or pills though. But we can't blame the company that markets such products.....so who is to blame? I say usually the person looking for the quick, easy fix.

I have just one thing to say in favour of front-of-package labelling. My eyesight is not that great, and some bits of info that are not necessarily in the nutrition label I squint to see on the back are very relevant to me.

I'm happy to see these sort of things on the front, (in readable letters):

Trans Fat Free/ Zero Trans Fat

GMO Free

Certified Organic.

As for the deceptive stuff, I'm with you all the way.

You're right, ozzb.

As long as the law is not broken by making statements that are false, the manufacturer should be free to use packaging space for promotional statements.

We can dislike the statement or criticize it, but we shouldn't question the right.

Actually, wasn't this an issue for farmers, who were being asked to take the "BSE-FREE" label off their milk? Those labels can be important for consumers as well, for our freedom of choice about what we do or do not want to eat.

You took the words out of my mouth (or off of my keyboard).

I have no problem with manufacturers putting what they want on their products as long as they not lies. Unfortunately there is that grey area where what they say could be debated as to it's level of truthfulness. In the example given ("Helps Support Your Child's Immunity"). To me, that's a lie...they do not know my child, even if their product works for most children. It could be truthful if they advertised "Helps Support 75% of the population's Immunity based on study A" or something along those lines.

I have to agree with ozzb as well. You make a very good point.

It is simply a matter of the consumer educating themselves and understanding that everything is not as it appears. In other words don't believe everything you read.

Statements such as "Helps Support You Child's Immunity" or "Helps to Lower Cholesterol" etc. are not 100% truthful but if studies have shown even a small percentage of truth I can see how they can make such claims.

I think the BSE-Free and the GMO-Free labels are being pulled from their products because of issues of certification. Food stuff for the livestock is being fortified with protein from reclaimed sources. Even the grains have to be tested. In most places crops are fertilized with manure. Would have to prove that it did not contaminant the grain. No one wants to increase the value to do the testing.

So if they do not have certification on everything an animal consumes they can't make the claim.

okay, I googled and found it, I meant to say the BGH or BST thing (dratted acronyms!) - like you said, the farmers were denied the right to offer their own pledge that the milk is produced without rBGH. In Minnesota, the government inspectors wouldn't include it in routine testing for health and safety, so no warranty without the cost of lab tests.

The lobby against the labeling is headed by Monsanto, which wanted rBGH-free labels removed from farmers' product so consumers do not have that information and the freedom to choose rBGH free products. Some states refused to restrict the labeling but others have done so: it is banned in Kansas according to this dated 2008. rGBH was banned in Canada in 1998 according to this report from Minnesota.

It would figure that Monsanto would lobby to have those labels remove. As Monsanto is the producer of rBGH. A hormone that increases milk production in dairy cows by about 10%. The hormone rBGH does show up in the milk produced from those cows injected with it. It maybe present in the milk of those cows not injected. As it is a natural hormone produced by the cow while lactating.

Think most of the label bans have to do with wording. As that the cows are free from the use of the hormone. The milk may not be totally free.

My first thought when reading this post was this: Our founding fathers had lived through despotic rulers, and knew the problem with onerous rules and regulations. First they wrote the Declaration of Independence, which laid the foundation for our Constitution to protect the people from the government's abuse and control. Our society has forgotten its roots having lived through a prosperous growing period for generations. Now, seeking the salvation from the government, and wanting to ban or legislate everything is just more of this intrusion into our lives. The Courts, Congress, and Executive branch are now being used to both control people and to look after their every need and whim. This was not and is not what freedom is about. We have forgotten.

We have propagated a society who now looks to the government to fix "problems" instead of looking to themselves.

We are to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under our constitution, not government handouts and regulations governing every area of our lives. Government of the people, by the people, NOT FOR the people.

What is government's purpose?:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Just to clarify... I wrote this blog not because I want to take away from the freedom of speech, but to remove false advertising that is sometimes/most-times not backed by thorough experimentation. Just as JBTardis commented about how a cereal boasts that it 'improved immunity in children', that isn't true for all children, so it is a misleading claim. If manufacturers had labels that were completely truthful, I would have no issue with them. It is when they boast 'facts' that simply aren't completely true that I have a problem with.

Caveat emptor

Let the buyer beware!

e.g., Learn, Understand, Overcome your confusion. So you can make your own informed decision. Will people hype their product as better or higher than what it is? Will they make unsubstantiated claims that may not be true? Yes and Yes.

Forewarned is forearmed. Experience is the best teacher. These are truisms that are no longer applied, we have forgotten.

As to your comment not taking away from freedom of speech, most well-meaning people, hoping to help others, often forget the rights we have under our Constitution in their hope to make things better. The insidious reduction of our rights bit-by-bit is the thing we must earnestly guard against. The internal gradual losses to our freedom are far more dangerous than the armed foe at our door.

I can understand some of the confusion. That's why i go right to the label. But what is false about it. May be little too misleading but not false. If the general agreement between tests and the medical community that some vitamin is needed for a healthy immunity. If a company fortifies the product with this vitamin. Couldn't they make the the statement that it help improve immunity? Maybe not for everyone but to those that diet is lacking in that vitamin.

" Couldn't they make the the statement that it help improve immunity? Maybe not for everyone but to those that diet is lacking in that vitamin "

If they state it will improve your child's immunity, then it's a lie as they do not know your child. They maybe able to claim "tests show improved immunity by x% of those who use our product" and be truthful (if in fact that's what the test show).

If a company fortifies the product with this vitamin. Couldn't they make the the statement that it help improve immunity?

Doesn't the drug companies have this locked up (with the FDA) about what vitamins can do. If you make a claim you have to run alot of tests and analyses to prove that, which at times is not only difficult but expensive.

That is why natural or herbal medicines (vitamins, minerals) can not make claims.

p911

It's all in the wording

Labels don't say that the help or improve. They say that they support.

Personally, I love the fact that Tesco (and the other major UK supermarkets, to some degree) have a section - on the back - called "Allergy Advice". On Tesco's products it's in bright pink, so it's easy to spot. A quick look there tells me whether there's gluten in the product. So much quicker than reading the whole ingredient list, with crossed eyes, to see if the 73rd ingredient is wheat flour.

Of course, if it doesn't say it's got gluten in it, then I read the ingredients lists to be doubly sure...

I don't read the front of packets - mostly because I don't believe anything that's on there. As other posters have said, low sugar/salt/fat or diet labels usually mean there's something else in there instead. As well as being bad for you (or at least having no benefit) most of them taste awful. Asparteme and saccharin anyone? Yuek.

Nature abhors a vacuum. It being in the nature of sales work to be at least passively deceptive (perhaps it's just innocent choice-supportive bias--Ha!), if one means of deception is banned, another will take its place.

It's a variation on an old argument, but labels don't lie, the people making the labels do. Without a cultural shift toward evaluating what is moral vs. evaluating what is legal (as Solzhenitsyn, among others, suggested) tricksy salesmanship will dominate food labeling, résumé authoring, and even the occasional CR4 post.