Nutrition labeling...moving forward?

In our class the other day, we were discussing some of the limitations with nutrition labeling. Several important points were made, including:

• Lack of standardized serving sizes
• The health or nutrition literacy varies among the general population
  
• Values and calculations can be confusing
  
• Doesn't cover ready-made or processed food, etc.
  

In regards to the last point, there has been a lot of attention in several U.S. cities over the past couple of years in regards to developing new laws enforcing restaurant chains to post nutrition labels on their menus. The City of Philadelphia council introduced February 14th, 2008 a new ordinance requiring the chain restaurants and retail food establishments make available certain nutrition information. The enforcement of that ordinance began February 1st of this year. In one of their consumer information sheets, the Department of Public Health announced:

"Menu labeling would allow Americans to exercise personal responsibility and make informed choices for a growing part of their diets"

They cited some shocking statistics including:

• Average American eats out 4 meals a week
• American adults and children consume on average 1/3 of their calories from eating out

Equally shocking, in 1970 Americans spent just 26% of their food dollars on restaurant meals and other foods prepared outside their homes. Today, they spend 46% (Centre for Science in the Public Interest, 2003). I would love to insert some current Canadian data here. Let me know if you have reviewed any literature on the topic.

Nutrition information is also becoming more readily available online. Bing, Microsoft's search engine, just announced that this information will be available along with recipes. So when you type in "apple pie nutrition," within seconds there is a link on the left-hand side of the screen with a full breakdown. Give it a try.

The Centre for Science in Public Interest has been in the news more than once around the topic of nutrition labeling. Recently they released on updated version of a more consumer friendly label. This proposed revision reflects new research in nutrition and addresses the proliferation of novel packaged goods displaying contentious health claims. See: "Food Label Makeovers Proposed by CSPI". Their December '09 issue has a great "before" and "after" graphic illustrating how particular ingredients and nutrient values, can be misunderstood. I appreciate the strategic use of typefaces and fonts on a small label, to improve legibility. Also, I like the breakdown of sweeteners the CSPI is proposing.

In the Public Health Nutrition journal (2005), Cowburn and Stockley completed a review of published and unpublished research into consumer understanding and use of nutrition labeling. They cited one Canadian study along with several from the UK and U.S. Although the paper addressed limitations with their review, there is some excellent tables summarizing research gaps in consumer use and understanding of nutrition labels. Also, there are a few sample tables from other countries.

A few key findings:

• Although consumers understood terms like "fat," "calories/kilocalories," "sugar," etc., they had difficulty understanding the role that different nutrients played in their diets
• Serving size information was difficult to interpret
• Older consumers and people of lower income levels of education or income were likely to have the most difficulty understanding the labels
  

(Gill Cowburn and Lynn Stockley. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 8, pp 21-28 doi:10.1079/PHN2004666)