Learning About Labels

A popular t-shirt slogan claims: “Labels are for cans, not people.” I’m beginning to have my doubts about that can part. It doesn’t look like people are getting this whole food-labeling thing.
The current U.S. label scheme has been in effect nearly 20 years—the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA), implemented standards for nutrition labeling for most foods, except meat and poultry, as well as nutrient content claims couched not just in absolute measurements, but in percent Daily Value (which replaced the 70s-era Recommended Dietary Allowances, or RDAs), and an array of FDA-approved health claims. In addition, all foods with more than one ingredient must have an ingredient declaration with the ingredients listed in descending order.
I’ll admit I have a college education, so I might have an advantage. But when we received the following question (by a consumer, and one under the age of 12, I hope): “Do Oreos have animal or pig fat?” I had to shake my head. I mean, what does the label say? But then I started looking at some surveys on labeling for a project I’m working on, and the sad fact is many people don’t understand food labels.
A paper on this topic published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2006 concluded: “Overall, consumers have mixed views on food labeling. Some find it useful for making better food choices, whereas others believe it is too complicated and should be easier to use. Although it is important for nutrition scientists to debate the best Dietary Reference Intake values to use in establishing the Daily Values for food labels, we need to be realistic about consumers’ understanding and use of the food label and of this data.”
I’m a firm believer in informed consent and consumption. But when people can’t understand the basic nutrition concepts on a label something is just not right. And I don’t think it’s the label. I think it’s the label readers.
We can start by introducing some basic effective nutrition information into the education system. I know the topic is occasionally covered, but apparently it is not actually effective. (Plus I’ve corrected some misconceptions my own kids have brought home, so it’s not always accurate, either.) On the other hand, we shouldn’t dumb it where it’s basically ineffective—the recent EU suggestion of red-yellow-green traffic-light symbols likely qualifies; at the minimum that goes back to the concept of demonization of foods.
Still, anyone who thinks understanding will automatically lead to a nation of nutrition evangelicals should remember famous another slogan: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” The same applies to green leafy vegetables.

   -Lynn A. Kuntz