FDA and Senate Put Trust in Public’s Nutritional Knowledge

By Zosha Millman | LXBN | July 11, 2016

Two different food labeling regulations are being approved this summer. And both of them depend on the American people doing their research.

The Senate’s passage of a GMO labeling bill Friday came right on the heels of the FDA finalizing their new guidelines for overhauling the food nutrition facts label. Both of these measures aim to better inform the public about exactly what they are when they eat, by advancing the access citizens immediately have. It’s a system that involves a lot of trust—that the public will have the know how and the research to be able to contextualize the new information—and though that trust may be misplaced, it’s may also be the best system we’ve got.

Food science—and the legal framing that comes with it—is notoriously slippery. But the FDA’s may be the best move yet in terms of understanding what type of information consumers are seeking. After a lengthy review process, the FDA has finally worked out the first overhaul to the nutritional facts guidelines in more than twenty years, and has told manufacturers to have their new labels in place by July 26, 2018. The key changes involve adding things that weren’t on the label before or were misleading—like added sugars, multi-serving packaging, odd-sized packaging—and better clarifying some primary components. The calorie count, for instance, will now be bigger and better highlighted, while serving sizes will reflect what people eat, not what companies (sometimes deceptively) recommend.

These sorts of things are good, and could help combat issues like people buying and eating “low-fat” foods in higher volume, which leads to gorging instead of proper moderation. Of course, ultimately the label is only as good as the knowledge of the person who’s reading it. And as Elena Fagotto of the Tribune News Servicenotes, the rub is that “it may not help those who need it the most:”

These calculations require English and math skills, time and motivation.

It should come as no surprise, then, that consumers who are already more informed about the connection between diet and health are more likely to take advantage of information presented on nutritional labels, or that people who already eat healthfully tend to use labels more than others. Research reveals that factors such as income, gender, age and race also influence label use.

A study published in 2010, for instance, showed that about 65 percent of whites report using labels, compared with 41 percent of Mexican-Americans and 55 percent of blacks. The same study found that about half of low-income respondents report using labels, compared with 70 percent of high-income people.

…We shouldn’t accept the simple notion that more information is always better. Unless it is comprehensible and actionable, transparency can end up empowering those who are already well-equipped to understand the information, and leave the rest behind.

That’s certainly what people are afraid of with the Senate’s new GMO guidelines. Although the long-sought and finally-arrived compromise will not put the GMO ingredient status directly on the label (labels will feature QR codes consumers can scan to get more information) many still believe it improperly vilifies GMOs, when the scientific consensus is that gene editing is no more harmful than modifications from traditional breeding—andmay even have greater health benefits. And it’s not just food companies; 107 nobel laureates recently signed onto a letter asking the Greenpeace to rethink their campaign against GMOs.

In that sense Fagotto is right: without context and education to back up the labels nothing much changes for consumers. But perhaps this new strategy can transcend that.

Photo Credit: Dan Domme cc

Maybe not everyone will get a formal nutrition class in their schooling, which means they won’t have a baseline knowledge in their mental toolkit at all times. But food science is a moving target, and (possibly most importantly) everyone’s body is different.

Take the serving size change, which will, as the FDA says, will now “be based on amounts of foods and beverages that people are actually eating, not what they should be eating.” The idea of “should be eating” is a loaded and misleading term; the caloric intake of a marathon runner will be different from that of an 18-year-old college student not working out intensely, which will be different from an 18-year-old college student who works out mildly. Changing the way the FDA chooses to consider and present that information is no small feat.

“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,” Susan Mayne, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in The Washington Post.

Truly knowing what’s “right for themselves and their families” will take a lot of time, research, and experimentation. But that’s the price of an individual process. By providing this information with a lighter, less judgmental hand, the FDA and Senate seem to be embracing the idea that customers will choose to explore these options and make informed decisions for themselves. And hopefully that way no one bites off more than they can chew.

Original