An Urban's Rural View

Sometimes it's the little things governments do that make a difference. Consider FDA's proposal to improve the Nutrition Facts label on food packaging (http://tiny.cc/…).

Contrary to the cynics who say no one reads food labels, as many as seven in 10 Americans told a pollster in 2011 they do (http://tiny.cc/…); it was five in 10 in a 2008 FDA study. Granted, academic research suggests they exaggerate. Tracking eye movements, a University of Minnesota experiment (http://tiny.cc/…) found subjects looked at components of the Nutrition Facts label far less than they claimed.

Still, 70% of them viewed at least one component some of the time. It isn't farfetched for FDA to think that if labels were more meaningful, people might make even greater use of them.

A side-by-side comparison of the current label and the proposed new one (http://tiny.cc/…) illustrates one of the changes: a larger type font for the key items on the label. This makes the number of servings per container and the calories per serving stand out so they can't be missed.

Another change: a new line on the label for "added sugars." It's been added, FDA says, because "Many experts recommend consuming fewer calories from added sugar because they can decrease the intake of nutrient-rich foods while increasing calorie intake."

And then there's the "reality check" change, which will, FDA says, make the number of servings "reflect how people eat and drink today, which has changed since serving sizes were first established 20 years ago."

Examples: A cup of ice cream will be labeled a single serving, not two servings, as it's currently labeled. Similarly, the label on a 20-ounce soda will indicate it is one serving. FDA thinks few people stop at a half-cup of ice cream these days and most soda lovers drink the whole thing.

Moreover, the FDA is proposing that "To eliminate confusion, certain larger packages that may be consumed in one sitting or more than one sitting, depending on your appetite and inclination, must be labeled both per serving and per package in the proposed update." It won't be as easy as in the past to devour the whole bag of potato chips thinking it is only 200 calories when that's the count for a "serving" of just 15 chips.

Will this proposal solve the obesity crisis? Of course not; it's an incremental step. But that doesn't mean it won't have a beneficial effect.

And unlike some government actions, it doesn't rob us of our power to choose. On the contrary, it helps us make more informed choices. We may still eat the whole bag of chips but we won't fool ourselves. We'll know we're splurging.

That doesn't mean the proposal is perfect. Indeed, at least one change is for the worse. Instead of the current "% Daily Value," the proposed label would read "%DV," with a footnote to the bottom of the label, where daily value is spelled out. That's a mistake. Many won't know what DV means and won't bother looking for the footnoted explanation.

On the whole, though, the proposed change is a step in the right direction -- an example of the kind of little thing a governmental agency can do to make a difference.

Urban Lehner

urbanity@hotmail.com

(ES)

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.