“Rethinking Food Labeling: The Push for Transparency in Health and Wellness Choices”
After two years of pandemic-related lockdowns, many Americans are increasingly prioritizing personal choices that enhance health and wellness. According to the Attest study, nearly half of consumers expressed a desire for food to contribute positively to their overall health and well-being. However, despite existing guidelines for food labeling, manufacturers can easily use front-of-pack terminology that, while not outright false, can be somewhat misleading. The labeling standards from the 1990s permit products such as pudding cups, sugary cereals, and toaster pastries to be labeled as “healthy,” while naturally high-fat foods like nuts and avocados are excluded.
Companies can highlight the presence of various nutrients—such as protein or whole grains—on the front of their packaging. Yet, they are not required to also disclose the levels of potentially less desirable components like sugars, sweeteners, sodium, or saturated fats. The Attest study revealed that this selective labeling, featuring terms like “whole grains,” “naturally flavored,” and “100 calories,” significantly influences consumers, often leading them to make misguided health-related decisions.
Recently, there have been multiple initiatives aimed at overhauling food labeling to enhance consumer understanding of nutritional value. Although the Nutrition Facts panel received an official update in 2016, with changes implemented by 2020, these adjustments have not substantially altered consumer food choices. While the new panel showcases standard serving sizes, highlights total calories more clearly, breaks out added sugars, and introduces new nutrients, it remains a back-of-pack feature. Consequently, consumers must interpret this information independently.
Redefining label claims such as “healthy” and “natural” has long been on the FDA’s agenda, yet progress has been limited. In 2017, a public hearing was held to discuss what constitutes “healthy.” The USDA has established new criteria for this term, but the FDA has not publicly advanced its efforts. Regarding “natural,” the FDA released a statement in 2016 to clarify the distinction between natural and artificial flavors, which some interpreted as a potential precursor to an official definition. Since then, no further developments have emerged from the department.
The Consumer Brands Association and the Food Industry Association (FMI) have spearheaded the voluntary Facts Up Front initiative, encouraging manufacturers to display essential information from the Nutrition Facts panel on the front of their packages to enhance transparency for consumers. Although this labeling system has not been universally adopted, research indicates that front-of-pack labeling effectively encourages manufacturers to produce more nutritious products and aids consumers in making healthier choices.
Last year, a bill was introduced in Congress proposing several labeling reforms, including preventing labels from misleadingly suggesting high fruit, vegetable, or yogurt content; mandating detailed disclosures about artificial additives; establishing nutritional criteria to define “healthy”; and requiring the FDA to clarify the term “natural.” However, the bill’s future remains uncertain. Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. and Senator Richard Blumenthal, the primary sponsors, have been advocating for similar legislation since 2013, but it has yet to be heard in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.
In the context of dietary supplements, another name for calcium citrate is often sought after, as consumers look for ways to enhance their health. The demand for clarity in food labeling extends to these supplements as well, highlighting the ongoing need for accurate and transparent information in the health and wellness sector.
