FDA’s suggested change to food packaging raises concerns among experts

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a new initiative to make food shopping easier to navigate, though experts remain skeptical.

The FDA has suggested placing nutrition information on the front of packaged foods, highlighting saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar. The goal is to “help consumers quickly and easily identify how foods can be part of a healthy diet,” the FDA said in its announcement on January 14.

Research indicates that nearly 80 percent of U.S. adults already consider the Nutrition Facts label when making purchasing decisions. But will placing the proposed ‘Nutrition Info box’ front and center significantly impact consumer behavior?

To explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of this initiative, Newsweek spoke with several nutritionists. The proposal is part of a broader effort to combat chronic diseases, which affect 60 percent of Americans.

‘A Good Idea’ for the General Public

Dana Hunnes, a clinical and public health dietitian and professor based in Los Angeles, California, explained why she supports the idea: “For the general public, I believe that this is a good idea as it gives high-level, big-picture ‘healthfulness’ (or not) of the packaged food item, especially for individuals who have medical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, etc., who may need to limit and/or monitor sodium intake, carbohydrate—especially from added sugars—intake, or saturated-fat intake.”

The proposed FOP (front-of-package) nutrition label simplifies nutrient information by rating saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars as “Low,” “Med,” or “High.”

Eric Crosbie, an associate professor of public health at the University of Nevada, Reno, also supports the move: “The ‘high in’ interpretation is the biggest needed improvement, and ideally a separate label for each nutrient that is high.

“However, this is an important step forward as sodium, added sugars and saturated fat are three nutrients that are overconsumed by Americans and linked to preventable chronic diseases. This long-overdue proposal has the potential to usher in healthier consumer purchases, incentivize companies to produce healthier products, and stem the rising tide of preventable conditions.”

Concerns About Eating Disorders

However, some experts expressed concerns with Newsweek. Shelley Balls, a registered dietitian nutritionist based in Smoot, Wyoming, said it doesn’t take much effort to turn a package around to read the box. She suggested that having the label on the front could make “eating disorders worse.”

She explained: “If someone was watching their sodium intake, they might be able to quickly compare products side by side to make the healthier choice, but when it comes to fat content, it could confuse some consumers.

“If only listing saturated fat and not the healthy fats like omega-3 (poly- and monounsaturated fats), it could prevent someone from picking that product based solely on its saturated fat content, even though it could have higher amounts of healthy fats.”

Katherine Metzelaar, a dietitian who specializes in eating disorders, echoed these concerns: “Food labels themselves already can trigger harmful or obsessive thoughts for individuals with eating disorders, along with anxiety about food eaten. Food labels also tend to disconnect people from internal cues (for example, ‘I should only have one serving regardless of hunger’) and reinforce obsession with numbers.

“As a health professional, I also don’t believe that moving the label from the back to the front is necessary or would change much regarding public health.”

The Importance of Education

Katie Schwartz, a registered dietitian from Asheville, North Carolina, emphasized the need for education around nutritional labels for this change to be effective. Without proper understanding, she believes it may do more harm than good.

“I believe this will cause more fear and stress about eating. With only saturated fat, added sugar, and sodium listed, people will automatically think these are ‘bad’ nutrients.

“This doesn’t tell us much about what this food will provide for our bodies. Everyone’s body has different needs—for example, an athlete doesn’t need to worry about eating high-sodium foods because they sweat so much that their body needs the sodium.”

Schwartz highlighted that the daily value percentage used on labels is based on a 2,000-calorie diet, which doesn’t account for variations in calorie needs based on age, sex, and life stage. Most people also don’t consume the recommended serving size because it’s either too little or too much.

She said: “It is very likely that this will make eating disorders worse. It will also increase stress about eating, even for those who do not have eating disorders. People often choose food based on marketing or labels on the package. Words like ‘organic’ or ‘gluten-free’ influence their decisions, even though this doesn’t mean the food is ‘healthier.’

“Because of the lack of understanding of nutrient labels, this abbreviated label on the front of the package could lead to people turning away from foods that are nutrient-dense (containing fiber, vitamins, minerals, protein, unsaturated fats).

“By adding another label or metric to judge our food choices to the front of the package, it will produce more shame, guilt, and stress when deciding what to eat. This could likely lead to people deciding not to eat at all because nothing feels safe enough, creating eating disorders.”