The (New) Law of the Land: Nutrition Labeling at Chain Restaurants

H.R. 3590, more commonly known as the health care reform bill passed by the House of Representatives last night, contains a provision I'll bet most people weren't aware of. Deep in the bill, on page 1206, is Section 4205, "Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items at Chain Restaurants." This section, which bears the full force of law once the President signs off on the legislation, requires chain restaurants (those with 20 or more locations) to prominently display the nutrition information for all standard menu items. How prominently? As in the picture above, chains will have to put the calorie content of each item right next to its menu listing. The rule also applies to vending machines.

Similar laws are already on the books in some jurisdictions (New York City, the State of California, and others), but the new federal law will supersede such state and local requirements. The fact that the federal law will preempt the patchwork quilt of local and state rules is significant in part because it is the reason this law was able to pass without much opposition from the industry. Food chains agreed to swallow this bitter pill in order to avoid the costly headache of navigating compliance on a locality-by-locality basis.

This sort of thing is a good reminder that local politics and regulations can matter in a big way, if only because they are so difficult and frustrating for large multi-state and national corporations to navigate.

The celebratory press release from CSPI, here.

And the FDA Issued Warning Letters, and There Was Much Rejoicing!

Consumer advocates and nutrition professionals are celebrating a victory this week in the form of a blast of warning letters sent out by the FDA to companies whose product labels violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Among those notified in the crackdown were such well-known and well-advertised brands as Gerber, Beech-Nut, Gorton's, Sunsweet, Nestlé, Pom, and Diamond. Companies were cited for a variety of violations including unauthorized health claims, unauthorized nutrient content claims, and the unauthorized use of certain terms and descriptors that have strict, regulatory definitions.

The FDA action comes on the heels of a major report on food labeling from CSPI and a prominent editorial on the same topic by nutrition expert Marion Nestle. For those who received the FDA letters as well as the industry as a whole, the letters serve as a warning shot, a notification that this FDA will not be the laissez-faire regulator of the last administration. Among those celebrating the letters, there is a hope that this will just be the first step of many toward what could be a complete revision of food labeling rules and enforcement.

Celebratory reporting from CSPI and Marion Nestle's blog; the FDA's press release; and articles from the Washington Post and the New York Times. No press release from the Grocery Manufacturers Association...

Front-of-Package Labeling: Snake Oil for the 21st Century

Loads of coverage in the last few days of Marion Nestle and David Ludwig's editorial calling for an end to front-of-package labeling in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The issue here is all those nutrient and health claims that have become commonplace in our supermarkets. Such claims, like the ludicrous one in the photo above that somehow Cocoa Krispies will support your child's immunity, are regulated by the FDA (and to an extent the FCC, when you're dealing with other forms of advertising), but over the last century or so the food processing industry has been immensely successful at weakening this regulatory authority through the courts and through legislation. Their reason for wanting the unregulated right to make such claims is as simple as sales - the endorsement of the American Heart Association or an extravagent health claim can give a much-prized sales bump to just about any product.

Why are nutritionists, doctors and consumer advocates so opposed to front-of-package labeling? The industry would have you believe that none of these groups have your best interests at heart, that these people want to suspend your freedom of choice, and that they want to disregard the freedom of expression (in this case, corporate speech). Here's the thing: freedom of choice and freedom of speech are vitally important things that I love very dearly, and I'm convinced that on both charges the industry is flat out wrong.

Freedom of Choice
I have said many times that when we say "freedom of choice" we actually mean "freedom of informed choice." After all, what good is having a choice if you are forced to make that choice on insufficient or even misleading information. When the cereal company tells people that Cocoa Krispies will improve children's immunity, people use that information to make choices about what to feed their children. Improves immunity how? Compared with what? Compared with a honey-bun? Maybe, though I wouldn't put any money on it if someone actually did a clinical study. Compared with a bowl of oatmeal and some fresh fruit? No chance in hell.

Freedom of Speech
Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to tell us that a medicine will cure a disease unless it has first done sufficient testing to prove to FDA regulators that the medicine is BOTH effective and safe. Is this a restriction on free speech? Yes. Do we get upset about it? No. Because when it comes to putting something in our body, we as a society very reasonably expect answers to basic questions like "what is this?" and "will it hurt me?" I fail to see how food is any different, particularly now that food is basically being advertised as medicine. I don't think anybody is saying that we should restrict TRUTHFUL claims about food. The problem is - and this is why Nestle goes so far as to suggest eliminating all claims - that very few claims are verifiably true, and it is in the best interest of the companies (who ultimately measure success in profits) to stretch these claims as far as possible in the interest of sales.

So I'm with Nestle on this one. In the entire history of front-of-label packaging, consumers have become not one bit more informed as a result, though they have certainly become fatter and more vulnerable to chronic disease. Enough's enough.

Responses to the the editorial from: The LA Times, Forbes, and Food Navigator.

Is Organic Safer?

 
A recent review of current research says that organic meat and dairy products aren't demonstrably safer than conventional alternatives. Coverage of this, here.

This doesn't necessarily surprise me. Most organic poultry, swine, and dairy production isn't all that different from conventional production in a lot of ways. I would be much more interested in a comprehensive study asking whether management-intensive small scale production is actually safer, as we are so often told (I think Omnivore's Dilemma makes this argument). For this reason, I hope that they revisit the question for dairy after the new organic pasture rules go into effect this summer, which will require organic dairy cattle to be pastured for most of the time.

The arguments for organic are many and varied, but it's always good to remember that it isn't a cure-all for food safety. I think most American consumers are misinformed about what the organic seal actually means, and what exactly they're paying for. I buy organic for a variety of reasons, but not because I think it is all that much safer, and not because I think it is any more nutritious. For safer and more nutritious food, I go to the farmers' market.

Are Organic / Free-Range / Vegetarian / Antibiotic-Free Eggs Really Worth It?

A good piece from Change.org's sustainable food blog on eggs, and the relative merits of the more expensive supermarket varieties. Nothing super new here for anyone that's read Pollan, Nestle, etc, but a good reminder.  The key takeaway, here:

A Free Range label on an egg carton or chicken wrapper almost invariably means the chickens were raised in a crowded shed with limited outdoor access and almost certainly no fresh grass. It is often not terribly different from how their conventional counterparts are raised, and yet by meeting a few technical benchmarks, sellers can mark up their products to fetch the premium prices that more ethical food bring, effectively duping consumers. Don't be fooled; there is no substitute for real pasture.

Eggs are fascinating, because they are both a ubiquitous staple, an aggressively marketed "functional" food, and the object of much nutritional debate. Even in small grocery stores today we are forced to choose between conventional, organic, omega-3 fortified, and more. If you're lucky enough to have access to good, pastured eggs from a small farm, you get the best of all of these. If you're stuck buying your eggs from the store, let your conscience and your wallet be your guide.  There's no doubt that organic and free-range are at least a little bit better for the environment and for the chickens. The omega-3s are a bit trickier. While such fortified eggs are undoubtedly a great source of the nutrient,  they aren't necessarily the most cost-efficient way of getting it. If you are worried about both omega-3 fatty acids and your food budget, you may be better off developing a taste for sardines and (depending on  your risk factors for thinks like mercury) other seafood. At any event, budget-conscious shoppers would be wise to pass on omega-3 fortified milk, which charges a hefty premium for a very modest amount of the fatty acid.

Menu Labeling Leads to Healthier Choices, New Studies Show

Great summary over at Food Law Prof Blog of some studies about the effects of menu labeling. A Stanford Graduate School of Business study involving Starbucks stores in New York City (where menu labeling is the law) and a separate study looking at McDonalds conducted by researchers at the University of Washington and the Seattle Children’s Research Institute both found that - surprise, surprise - when people can see the nutrition facts for menu items, they tend to choose healthier ones.

Menu labeling is a win-win proposition: nobody tells restaurants what they can or can't sell, but consumers are empowered to make more informed choices about their food. National menu labeling legislation is expected to go through some time this year, either as part of health care reform or separately.

Still More Salt!

Marion Nestle has kindly gathered a lot  of the evidence for salt reduction in one place. I understand that this is highly contentious, and that the salt lobby would really like us to think that salt reduction is pointless, but from my perspective the question is not whether a salt reduction could make us healthier. The question is what to do with that information.

The answer to that question is not, in my humble opionion, any sort of mandatory salt reduction in foods. Let people see this  research, and decide for themselves how much salt they want in their diets. Oh, and that means not lableing things in deceptive ways viz-a-viz salt. I love salty, fatty foods, but I think it's inexcusable when the producers of these use loopholes to advertise these products with all sorts of health (structure/function, in the legalese) claims, or proudly mark their "lesser evil" foods as "heart healthy." If a package says something is good for my heart, shouldn't that at least mean that it's not really bad for my heart? It's like the new Taco Bell campaign: a new menu that's HEALTHY (when compared with and eaten in place of the other truly horrible things on our menu) !