Fit and Active (fit facts) The Right Front of Pack system?

   One of my classmates was eating a snack the other day and the package caught my attention.  I noticed that it had a front of pack label and that the back of the pack contained an explanation of the label system.  I did not recognize the brand of mini rice cakes.  I thought that the Quaker iced/frosted mini rice cake snacks had a new package and label.  I asked my friend if I could have her empty package.  I know, I am that weird.
   Turns out, the snack cakes were a store brand and the store has implemented this labeling across all its products.  It is from ALDI.  They refer to their scheme or system as Fit Facts.
   I am 100% in favor of a front of pack system or label that highlights nutrients that are important to consider in our diets.  Nutrients that we get too much of and should limit.  The problem is a lack of standardization over which nutrients should be highlighted.  The Institute of Medicine has given us some guidelines but the recommendations have not translated into rules - YET.  I wrote about them here, almost a year ago.
   The ALDI labeling, which you can see below does not make things clear for the shopper.  For example, the rice cakes package I 'borrowed' shows the amount in grams or milligrams(sodium) of four items.  I disagree with the inclusion of total fat because saturated fat is the item to limit and though three of the four show a percent daily value (which is suspect but helpful) the fourth SUGAR has no percent daily value because it has no daily value.  If the FOP system used was the multiple traffic light, the criteria would have each of those items as either red, amber or green. In the rice cake case, the sugar grams are 6.  That seems low right?  It's not.  The total weight of the package is 20grams.  That means that the product is 30% sugar.  The multiple traffic light (MTL) uses red to warn that a product is high in sugar if it contains as little as14% ! It is okay to eat this 90 calories and 6 grams of sugar, just don't tell yourself it is a low sugar product.
   The front of pack systems are needed and they can be helpful but  this label does not make it easy for you to know if something is "healthy."  We should not have to get out our calculators and divide 6 by 20 to get our percent of sugar!

The picture on the bottom left is the Front of Pack system.

 

FOP Delay Breeds Confusion

When the Institute of Medicine was conducting its review of front of pack labeling systems prior to making its final recommendation to the FDA at the end of 2011, it addressed several existing systems that were currently in use.  
Included in their analysis were NuVal and Guiding Stars.  Both of these systems were deemed inadequate and misleading and the IOM ended with a recommendation that would be used across all products and would include a point earned for meeting certain criteria, only after an overall benchmark of "goodness" was achieved. My past posts in regard to this issue can be found here.
Unfortunately, the FDA is not ready to make the new national labeling system happen and I am most certain politics abound and work to delay the efforts.  
You are probably seeing front of pack systems on the products you buy now, but education on their use has not begun and they are not the symbols created by health experts. 
Some big grocers are themselves adopting the systems that the IOM discredited - which is really the fault of the FDA not the grocers.  In the article I read today, a couple of the health experts are consulted and stand by the IOM report.  You can read it here.

FOP - Final Recommendations

I am excited to say that the Institute of Medicine has released Phase II of its commissioned study on Front of Pack labeling systems.  In Phase II, it recommends how a standardized program should look and be implemented.
[I do not have time to read all of the 224 pages (now), and you know that I really do want to.]
There was a live report on the release this morning.  I caught just a bit before I had to run to class, notably, someone asked about short fall nutrients.  If you remember from my previous FOP posts, the Phase 1 report had made recommendations on what items to include on the label - just not how to do so.  The person asking that question was referred to the first report (where it is decided to only address the items that we are encouraged to limit).  The speakers did reiterate their desire to align the system with the DGA 2010 and with the NFP. 
If this is the first you've read about this - I suggest you click on the hyperlink above as I have detailed this initiative in several past posts.
Ok - here is the bottom line as I understand it from first and brief glance.
The recommendation that the IOM is giving to the FDA for final rule is this:
* Items to highlight

• Saturated and Trans fat
• Calories (per household serving size - i.e. 1/2 cup)
• Sodium
• Added Sugars  <<>>

* Foods to include

• pretty much everything (snacks, cereals, dairy, breads. packaged foods, meats - everything)
• bulk foods and produce will have shelf tags (instead of a FOP label)

* Point system

• They did not choose the multiple traffic light,however the proposed label has three circles and each circle may receive a check (see below)
• Each item (combined trans/sat fat, sodium, sugar) has a set criteria of the maximum amount a serving can have and be considered healthy (I haven't read the qualifiers yet).  For trans fat it is usually zero.  Anyways, if it meets the BEST category it gets a point or check - if it does not, it gets a zero.  In the food category of cereal for example, the choices with 3 checks or 3 points will be healthier than a cereal with 2, 1, or zero.  

 There is so much more to read and consider but it may have to wait for me.  I have given you a pretty decent over view. The FDA is likely to take the info and make a proposed rule.  If it is like the menu and vending label "proposed rules", there will be time for more comment before a mandate is given.  [I noticed that some of the popular press outlets are running a story on these recommendations as well  - so you may also see this in your morning papers]
I am very excited that we are making progress - as you know, I get very frustrated at the lack of consistent and  complete, nutrient transparency when I am shopping.

Research and Policy Intersect with Public Media

Boyd Swinburn is the Alfred Deakin Professor of Population Health and Director of the World Health
Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention at Deakin University in Melbourne.  You have seen his name many times in my blog and I have read at least 20 articles which either discuss policy issues or examine research that he himself has conducted. 

Recently I talked about the 4 articles that are published in the medical journal the Lancet.  I also mentioned that Dr. Swinburn was to attend a UN General Assembly Meeting in NYC this month.  

His work as a researcher and as director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Obesity Prevention is getting him a lot of press these days.  His studies often include the USA, UK and Australia.  Today I am linking you to a popular press story which does his research justice.  Remember, I have read the work of both Swinburn and the other scientist noted in the report, Gortmaker.  I have blogged about Swinburn's work which shows that the weight gain in the last 30 years is much more about calories in then out.  In this article it is said again.  Our change in physical activity occurred decades before our weights began to rise.  Our bodies had adjusted to the change in activity and as individuals we WERE eating less to compensate for doing less- until the "tipping point" happened.  The calorie content of our food doubled and tripled. The journalist quotes the studies of Swinburn et al - and this is my favorite line "Energy intake rose because of environmental push factors, i.e., increasingly available, cheap, tasty, highly promoted obesogenic foods.” 

This is not a research article but a newspaper story written by Jane Brody - do take a minute to read it for yourself.  This is the type of policy work I hope to engage in myself.