Does FDA’s proposed front-of-pack nutrition labeling miss the mark?

“FDA’s proposal to mandate front-of-pack nutrition labeling that quantifies and qualifies the percent daily value of saturated fat, sodium and added sugar to help consumers more easily make informed dietary choices triggered frustrated outcry from industry trade groups and accolades from public health advocates.

Industry trade groups, including the Consumer Brands Association, the Sugar Association and FMI – The Food Industry Association… argued that while they share FDA’s goal in reducing diet-related chronic disease they believe the suggested FOP changes will be expensive to implement, will not improve consumer understanding of overall dietary patterns and is based on outdated and “opaque” research…

Missing from the proposed FOP Nutrition Info box is calories – one of the few pieces of information that both industry stakeholders and public health advocates argued should be included. Their exclusion in the proposed rule also rankled the Sugar Association with the group’s President and CEO Courtney Gaine arguing in a statement that the Sugar Association supports transparency, “but this draft label offers only the illusion of transparency” in part because it does not include total calories.

FDA’s decision to include added sugars in the proposed Nutrition Info box goes against warnings from the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health and others that doing so could have “unintended consequences,” including an increased reliance on non-nutritive sweeteners so a product could claim to be low or medium in added sugars. “By singling out added sugars, FDA is once again knowingly incentivizing proliferation of artificial sweeteners that hide behind chemical names Americans do not recognize – including in food for children,” Gaine said in a statement.

She added that while the Sugar Association supports limiting added sugars to less than 10% of total calories, “this should not be achieved by misleading consumers or manipulating the food supply with more additives. Most Americans prefer to avoid low- and no-calorie sweeteners in food, and health organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about their widespread use. At some point, some agency needs to acknowledge that we do not have a good grasp on how pervasive these sweeteners have become in our food supply, unbeknownst to most Americans.”

Her sentiments echo concerns raised by the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health at a public meeting hosted by The Reagan-Udall Foundation for FDA in November 2023. Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) Senior Policy Scientist Eva Greenthal agreed this is a “really valid concern” and something that has happened in countries with nutrient warnings for sugar, but she adds it can be mitigated several ways. “First off, not all non-nutritive sweeteners are dangerous, and the ones that are need to be removed from our food supply entirely. Aspartame should not be allowed in our food. That needs to be dealt with simultaneously and separately,” she said.

Another option is to mandate additional front-of-pack disclosures about non-nutritive sweeteners used in products, she said. However, she acknowledged, this could require Congressional authority because non-nutritive sweeteners are ingredients rather than nutrients, and FDA authority for front of pack labeling is focused on nutrients.”

Read the full article here: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2025/01/15/fda-proposed-front-of-pack-nutrition-labeling/